Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Speed Limit, Castle Bromwich

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the representations made to him by or on behalf of the Warwickshire County Council, the Castle Bromwich Parish Council and others, he will now restore the speed limit on the length of trunk road at Castle Bromwich between the Birmingham city boundary and Hurst Lane.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): No, Sir. I have given careful consideration to these representations, but I do not consider that a speed limit would be justified.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the very strong local feeling on this matter, will the Minister agree not to close his mind entirely on the subject and arrange for this stretch of road to be kept under close observation, especially having regard to

the very large number of people who have to cross the road to get from their homes to the shops, schools and cinemas?

Mr. Barnes: I am happy to assure the hon. Member that my mind is never closed on this problem of speed limits, which has to be continually examined in the light of changing circumstances. I readily give him that undertaking.

Crofter Counties

Mr. MacLeod: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the national interest, he will make a complete survey of the road system in the seven Highland counties, with the object of opening up isolated districts on the west coast and providing adequate roads suitable for modern transport.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. About half of the total of some 1,200 miles of road comprised in the crofter counties scheme remain to be dealt with, and the work will be carried out at the cost of the Road Fund as economic conditions permit. No useful purpose would be secured by a further survey at the present time.

Mr. MacLeod: Does not the Minister agree that it is useless for the Secretary of State for Scotland to talk about developing the Highlands until adequate roads have been provided, and that such a survey is necessary for the long-term programme of road development in the Highlands which is so essential?

Mr. Barnes: That survey was in fact undertaken, and it was upon it that the


Government agreed to carry through this 1,200 miles of road improvements. As I have indicated, approximately half of the work has been carried through and another section is proceeding; the others will follow in due course. Therefore, I see no reason to incur the expense and to waste the time of technicians until this section at least has been completed.

Road Surfaces, London

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that one of the main factors contributing to the increase in motor-vehicle accidents in London is the state of the road surface; and what steps he is taking to insure the speedy repair and modernisation of all the main-road surfaces in London.

Mr. Barnes: I have no evidence to this effect. The figures of road accidents in London involving death or personal injury have decreased over the last three years. Responsibility for the repair and modernisation of London streets rests with the Metropolitan borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London.

Mr. Piratin: As far as accidents are concerned, does not the Minister recall that the figures he gave last week show that the number of accidents to motor vehicles is increasing? As far as the state of the roads is concerned, is he aware that different Metropolitan borough councils seem to have different standards, and will he give special attention to the road leading out of London to Oxford, particularly to the stretch from Marble Arch to Notting Hill where the surface changes every 100 yards and is most dangerous?

Mr. Barnes: I will forward to the hon. Member the figures in connection with the statement I have made. As I have indicated, the surface of the roads is the responsibility of the borough councils.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Should the right hon. Gentleman ever find himself in the vicinity of the Minister of Works, will he have a word with him about the road surface in The Mall?

Captain Crookshank: Are the road authorities the right hon. Gentleman has quoted responsible for the roads through the parks, because those are the worst in London?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. That is a different question.

Captain Crookshank: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that something is done about it?

Mr. Barnes: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works.

Captain Crookshank: He is sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman. Why not tell him about it?

FERRIES (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. MacLeod: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now make a fuller statement regarding the recommendations in the report of the Committee on Ferries in Great Britain; and state by what means such recommendations can be put into effect administratively.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 6th December last.

Mr. MacLeod: Can the Minister say that this will be speeded up, because it is vitally necessary that something should be done to improve the deplorable conditions of the ferries in the Highlands?

Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that for centuries no Government ever obtained information on these matters. As I have indicated, the Committee has produced an exceedingly useful report and consultations have taken place. I hope to be in a position, as I have said, to make a statement in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Cables (Testing Centres)

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that the Coat-bridge firm producing cables are compelled to send these to the Midlands for testing; and as this transport cost handicaps production at low cost, will he endeavour to remedy this situation by provision of a proving test nearer the centre of production.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Small lengths of cable are sent to testing centres at Sheffield or Netherton only when they require special tests which cannot be carried out by the firm or at a local centre, and total production costs should not be seriously affected by the small extra expense involved. It would he for the industry to establish an additional special testing centre, but the cost of providing such a centre would be heavy and I am advised that there is no general demand for it.

Mrs. Mann: Is the Minister aware that if the cable chain is 2½ inches in diameter it need not go further than Lloyds of Glasgow for testing, but if it is 2¾ inches it has to go to the Midlands? Surely he will agree that it is uneconomic, if there is a flaw in it, that it has to go back to the Midlands a second time? Will he not do something about it?

Mr. Strauss: I understand that only on special tests, and quite occasionally, have a few feet of this type of cable to be sent to Sheffield, and I am advised that there is no general demand for the setting up of another testing station nearer these works.

Mining Machinery (Prices)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Minister of Supply the average 1948 increase in the price of mining machinery and equipment compared with the prices prevailing in 1938.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: About double.

Mr. Oliver: Is the machinery manufactured by private companies?

Mr. Strauss: Mostly. Of course, there is a whole range and variety of mining machinery, and I am not quite sure to what my hon. Friend is referring.

Mr. Oliver: Are not these increases considerably in excess of any increase which has taken place in the nationalised industries?

Radar Apparatus (Export)

Mr. Cobb: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will allow British contractors to the Armed Services to manufacture and export apparatus for the radar interceptor network across Northern Canada which is now under consideration by the Canadian and United States Governments.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Yes, Sir. I would be very ready to consider any proposal for the manufacture of radar equipment in this country for export to Canada.

Mr. Cobb: Does the Minister know of any obstacles to our getting part of this contract, and if he does, will he say what they are?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir, I know of no obstacles, but I do not know of any inquiry which has come from Canada for this equipment.

Steel Production

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Minister of Supply what increase in steel-making capacity is likely to come into production during 1949.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The additional effective operating capacity should be about 400,000 ingot tons.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Is my right hon. Friend planning a collection of steel scrap to keep pace with this, and is he satisfied with the supply of pig iron?

Mr. Strauss: No, I cannot be certain that there will be sufficient material for the additional output involved, but the collection of steel scrap is going on very successfully.

Middleton Hall

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Minister of Supply to what use Middleton Hall, Middleton, Lancashire, is now being put by his Department.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Middleton Hall is no longer being used by my Department.

Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister say whether or not the house in question is now empty?

Mr. Strauss: As far as I am aware.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Property (De-Requisitioning)

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Works whether, since nearly four years have passed since V.E. day, he will issue a directive to the effect that when any house or property is de-requisitioned it should no longer first be offered to other Departments but released direct to the owner.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): Requisitioned premises are now released direct to the owner with the following exceptions; small houses and flats are still notified to the Ministry of Health in connection with housing requirements; and large houses, shops and sites are notified to Government Departments generally, in case their use would free other premises which it was more important to release. This procedure is reviewed periodically and it is the intention to relax it further as the supply of accommodation improves. Ninety-two per cent. of all types of requisitioned premises have now been released.

Mr. Donner: Is it really necessary to continue with this particular system in view of the anxiety caused to people whose homes have been requisitioned, and who do not know what Department is going to take over their homes, what sort of treatment their homes will be subjected to, and what will happen to their compensation claims?

Mr. Key: These must be very large houses indeed, because it is only small houses which are notified to the Ministry of Health for housing purposes.

Mr. Donner: It is the principle that is involved.

Richmond Park

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works when he intends to reopen to motor traffic the road between Robin Hood Gate and Ham Cross, Richmond Park.

Mr. Key: As nearly half of Richmond Park is under cultivation, and the public are deprived of the enjoyment of the peace and quiet of so large an area, I consider it undesirable to permit motor traffic along the Robin Hood—Ham Cross Road.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no cultivation takes place in the vicinity of this road, and that the closing of the road involves motorists in a considerable additional expenditure of petrol in going round the park? Is he aware of the serious local feeling on the subject, and will he reconsider this decision?

Mr. Key: I am not aware of any serious local feeling. Although there is

no cultivation in the proximity of this road, as I have said pretty well half of the park is under cultivation, and I think it is best to preserve this part of the park for the use of the ordinary person.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's answer, is it his intention ever to re-open this road?

Mr. Key: I have given the hon. Gentleman that information previously. As soon as we are in a position to do away with cultivation in the park, it will be time for this road to be re-opened.

House of Commons (Lighting)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Works if he will have the present electric lighting in the Commons Chamber examined by a qualified person to determine the extent of eye-strain which it causes.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir. I am asking the Medical Research Council and the Building Research Station to examine the lighting in consultation with my own experts and advise whether it causes eyestrain.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Works what changes in type of electric lamp used in the Commons Chamber have been made since 1906; and if the present type is the most modern available.

Mr. Key: Since 1906 various changes have been made in the type of lamps used, the last change being in January, 1944, when 40 watt vacuum type lamps were installed. This is not the most modern type of lamp, but is the most satisfactory for the fittings in the Chamber.

Mr. Beswick: Is it not the case that these particular lamps have to be specially made and that it is most uneconomic? If the holders are out of date, why not have the holders themselves changed?

Mr. Key: They are not specially made. The difficulty about lighting in the House is that at the present time we are dependent on D.C. supply instead of A.C. When we get the supply changed over, an alteration will be made.

Mr. Keeling: If any increased provision of current is involved, will the right hon.


Gentleman consider further whether current cannot be spared to light two or three of the best pictures in the Dining Room?

Mr. Key: I have told the hon. Gentleman that as soon as we can get the new system of supply into operation, I will give very careful consideration to the lighting of the pictures.

Mr. Cobb: Is it not true that the present arrangement is antiquated, and that if a bulb has to be changed some kind of scaffolding like a fire escape has to be brought into operation which costs about 16s.? As this is an invention of the Tories, is it not about time that it was replaced by something more up to date?

Mr. Key: The opportunity of bringing in a modern system of lighting will not arise until the new supply system is installed.

Captain Crookshank: Is it not a fact that we are indebted to the other place for the use of this Chamber, and that it is hardly up to us to change their arrangements?

Mr. Key: The arrangements would not be changed without consultation with the authorities concerned.

Clapham Common

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Works how many acres of Clapham Common are now being used for purposes such as air-raid shelters, excavation dumps, gun site, prefabricated houses, army huts, day nursery and Ministry of Works Depot; and what percentage of the whole of Clapham Common this constitutes.

Mr. Key: About 2½ acres, representing about 10 per cent. of the Common. The gun site and the Ministry of Works Depot were de-requisitioned some months ago.

Mr. Piratin: In view of the fact that the Minister now expects to take over another eight acres for a car park for the 1951 Exhibition, and in view of the fact that there is widespread indignation in that part of London, will he go into the question of releasing some further areas for leisure and recreation before proceeding with the car park?

Mr. Key: It is news to me that I am contemplating taking eight acres for a car park.

Bombed Premises (Rebuilding)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Works how many applications have reached him from London firms for permits to restore or rebuild bombed premises; and how many he has refused.

Mr. Key: I regret that detailed figures are not available.

Sir T. Moore: With the war four years over and the Festival of Britain two years ahead, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something should be done quickly to repair these ugly gaps in our main thoroughfares, which are, after all, the shop windows of Britain?

Mr. Key: I most certainly think so, but I was not asked that question. I was asked about the number of cases, and I have said that the figures are not available. My experience is that pretty well four out of every five applications made for this purpose are granted.

Sir T. Moore: It is hard to see any sign of it.

Requisitioned Premises, Bristol

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that the tenancy of Provident Hall, Redcliffe, Bristol, by his Department is causing great inconvenience and loss of revenue to the owners, the Adult School Friendly Society; and if he will take early steps to vacate these premises which have been occupied since 1939, seeing that the premises occupied prior to the war are available.

Mr. Key: I am aware that the Adult School Friendly Society wish to terminate my Ministry's tenancy of the Provident Hall and a search is being made for alternative accommodation. I understand that the premises used by the medical boards before the war are no longer available.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not a fact that the premises occupied prior to the war have recently been re-let to another tenant?

Mr. Key: As I have said, these premises are not available for the purpose


for which we want to use them. Therefore, we are not in a position to use them for accommodation.

Mr. Awbery: They have recently been re-let.

Mr. Key: I have said they are not available.

TURKEY (MEDITERRANEAN DEFENCE)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what request he has received from the Government of Turkey for the organisation of a Mediterranean Defence Pact.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil): None, Sir.

Mr. Reid: In view of the great importance of the defence of Turkey, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Anglo-Turkish Treaty, 1939, is still in force?

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Can the Minister of State give an assurance that this question of a Mediterranean Pact is being pursued with energy by His Majesty's Government?

Mr. McNeil: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that our relations with the Government of Turkey are most cordial. No aspect of Turco-British relationships is lost sight of.

POLAND (BRITISH BROADCASTS)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has given to the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding the policy of His Majesty's Government to Poland.

Mr. McNeil: This Department endeavours to supply to the B.B.C. all information about current affairs connected with Poland which may assist them in their overseas broadcasts.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the fact that the British Broadcasting Corporation has not limited it to that most valuable

line of information but is broadcasting slanderous personal attacks on members of the Polish Government in their personal capacity, would my right hon. Friend consider some further approach to the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Mr. McNeil: I am unaware of any slanderous attacks, but of course the British Broadcasting Corporation have complete discretion in the arrangement of their programmes.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of their complete lack of discretion, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider a more private and direct approach?

FOREIGN POLICY DOCUMENTS (CZECHOSLOVAKIA)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the official correspondence of Mr. Neville Chamberlain dealing with diplomatic negotiations affecting Czechoslovakia at the time of the Munich Conference has been omitted from the recently published collection of Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–39.

Mr. McNeil: The volume of Documents on British Foreign Policy to which the Question refers covers the period from 9th March to 23rd July, 1938. No official correspondence of Mr. Neville Chamberlain dealing with diplomatic negotiations affecting Czechoslovakia has been found in the Foreign Office archives for the period covered by this volume and none has, therefore, been omitted.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister explain the matter to us, in view of the fact that at that time there was very definite correspondence on the part of the Prime Minister on this question? Will he inquire in the Prime Minister's Department to ascertain whether these important documents will be included in the next volume?

Mr. McNeil: That is quite another question. The question which I was asked referred to the archives of the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Film "Oliver Twist"

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the showing of the film "Oliver Twist" in Berlin has created considerable resentment and distress amongst some of the population there; what request the British Military Government has received from Professor Reuter, the senior burgomaster, and others for the withdrawal of the film; and what instructions he proposes to give in this matter.

Mr. McNeil: Disorderly demonstrations against the showing of the film "Oliver Twist" took place at a cinema in the British sector of Berlin on the afternoons of 20th and 21st February. In view of these demonstrations the film, which had been shown on the two previous days, was replaced by another film. A letter signed by the oberburgermeister and various political and cultural leaders criticising the presentation of the film on the grounds that it might stir up antisemitic feeling was received by the Military Governor on the afternoon of 21st February.
Since the showing of this film was a German commercial undertaking in a German building, the demonstrations against the film were a German and not a British responsibility. The General Officer Commanding British troops in Berlin, however, advised the representative of the distributing agency to withdraw the film, but the actual decision not to show it, and the final decision to end its run, were made by the representative of the distributing agency himself.

Mr. Janner: I am sure that my right hon. Friend appreciates what a serious thing it is, after a régime like that of Hitler which was monstrously anti-Semitic, that anything should be shown which would hurt the feelings of people who had suffered so badly. Would he please take into consideration that fact, and see to it that the authorities there do all they can to stop the exhibition of this film in any place where people have been so affected?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend will, of course, take note of what has been said. We are watching the situation carefully.

Berlin

Mr. Scott-Elliot: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that preparations are being made to build up in Berlin during the summer months large reserves for the winter of 1949–50, so as to show the Russian Government our determination to remain in Berlin.

Mr. McNeil: Yes, Sir, and my right hon. Friend wishes to assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government will continue to fulfil their obligations towards the people of Berlin.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend give the widest publicity throughout Berlin to what he has now said?

Mr. McNeil: indicated assent.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will direct the British representative on the Security Council of the United Nations to ask the Chairman to publish the report and recommendations of the committee of experts on the Berlin dispute.

Mr. McNeil: The question of publication is one for the President of the Security Council to whom the report was addressed. Meanwhile the report is under consideration by His Majesty's Government, who are keeping in close touch with the United States and French Governments upon this subject.

Mr. Swingler: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the importance of publishing this report? Is he aware that parts of it have already been published in the Press of one of the interested Powers and commented upon, and that the comments were referred to in "The Times" of 22nd February? Will he therefore make representations to the Chairman of the Security Council about the importance of the publication of the whole of the report so that everybody may be able to judge the work which is being done?

Mr. McNeil: As I have said, we are studying it and we are in touch with the Governments of France and the United States. It would obviously be rather empty to make a promise about our attitude before we had completed the study and the consultations.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: In view of the great importance of this subject, can my right hon. Friend make clear whether


the reports which appeared in the American Press last week were correct or not, namely, that this country had been responsible for the rejection of the proposals of that United Nations committee?

Mr. McNeil: I do not want to be drawn into commenting about the report, but there have been reports in newspapers other than those in the United States—the "Daily Worker" published several reports—and they are not all accurate.

Polish Note

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has now replied to the Polish Note of 8th December, 1948, concerning German revisionist activities in the British-occupied zone of Germany; and if he will publish his reply.

Mr. McNeil: A reply was sent on 2nd February. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As my right hon. Friend is not prepared to publish this answer, would he be good enough to look into the affairs of the "Council for Expellees from the East" which has been set up in the British zone of Germany and licensed by the British Military Government, under which Herr Lukaschek, once Land President of Silesia, seems to be busy trying to foster a movement for the revision of the boundaries in breach of our agreement.

Mr. McNeil: I cannot agree that we have violated any of our agreements. My noble Friend will be glad indeed to look at any case about which substantiated detail is given.

Western Frontiers

Mr. Nigel Birch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on rectification of the western frontier of Germany.

Mr. McNeil: It is expected that a statement on this subject will be issued shortly.

BURMA (WAR MATERIAL)

Mr. Donner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the war-time services of the

Karens to the British Army in Burma, he will give an assurance that no military supplies or equipment have been or will be sold to the Government of Burma so long as civil war reigns in that country.

Mr. Keeling: ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the obligation in the Defence Agreement with Burma to give reasonable facilities for the purchase of war material extends to weapons to be used inside the country again the Karens; and when the three years, for which the agreement remains in force, will expire.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government signed a Defence Agreement with the Burmese Government, under which His Majesty's Government contract to afford the latter all reasonable facilities for the purchase of war material. We have no intention of denouncing this agreement unilaterally.
The Agreement runs in the first instance for three years from 4th January, 1948, and is thereafter subject to 12 months' notice on either side. No restrictions are placed on the use of the war material so obtained, nor would it be appropriate to attempt to impose restrictions as suggested by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner), much as His Majesty's Government regret the recent outbreak of Karen-Burmese communal strife, and anxious as they, and all Governments friendly to the Burmese Government, are that this fighting should end.

Mr. Donner: Will this matter be discussed at the Delhi Conference? Is the position of the Government such that they can show no sort of gratitude at all for unswerving loyalty during Japanese invasion and occupation, often at great personal risk?

Mr. McNeil: The agenda and the business of the Delhi Conference are quite another subject. The gratitude of His Majesty's Government is well-known but does not allow them to escape from a contractual obligation.

Mr. Keeling: , Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the supplying of arms for communal strife is, in the language of the Defence Agreement. "reasonable"?

Mr. T. Reid: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the British Government do not take sides in this unfortunate civil war?

Mr. Driberg: Is it not also unfortunate that British subjects who should have known better have been instigating the Karen rebels and trying to run guns to them? Will my right hon. Friend repudiate the activities of those persons?

Mr. Lipson: In view of the obligation to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, will not he advise the Burmese Government that they should consider giving self-government to the Karens?

EASTERN EUROPE (DEATH PENALTY)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Governments of Roumania, Hungary and Bulgaria have introduced new penal codes providing the penalty of death for various economic offences and, in the case of Roumania, extending the penalty to accomplices and accessories; and whether, as these codes contravene the articles on Human Rights in the Peace Treaties signed with these countries, he will refer the matter to the Soviet, British and American Heads of Mission in the three countries, in accordance with the provisions made in the Peace Treaties.

Mr. McNeil: The reactionary tenor of these laws, and their vague drafting, appear to give Governments power of life and death over a very wide and indeterminate field. They do indeed, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, clearly flout the article of the Peace Treaties mentioned by my hon. Friend. This article provides that Roumania, Hungary and Bulgaria should take all measures to secure the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Although my right hon. Friend's past experience does not encourage him to believe that the Soviet Government are anxious to co-operate in ensuring the observance of the treaties, he is nevertheless prepared to consider in conjunction with the Governments of the United States and of France making a further approach to the Soviet Government upon this subject.

Mr. Fletcher: Would it not now be possible to obtain the whole hearted co-operation of the Russian Government, in view of the explicit declaration of Mr. Vyshinsky in the Political Committee of the United Nations Assembly in November last that
the U.S.S.R. cannot agree to death sentences being used in any country in time of peace

Mr. McNeil: I am aware of the statement. I fear that it was primarily intended for export. My right hon. Friend will, of course, use this statement, if we should decide to approach the Soviet Government.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman has said that he is prepared to approach the Soviet Government, but surely the countries concerned are in theory at any rate, completely independent? Will not he approach them direct? Will he not consider supporting the protest of His Majesty's Government by more definite action?

Mr. McNeil: I said that my right hon. Friend would consider such an approach. Direct approach would not be proper because the treaty lays it down that the four Powers should act jointly upon such subjects as this.

BULGARIA (PROTESTANT PASTORS)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether permission has yet been given by the Bulgarian Government for a member of His Majesty's Legation at Sofia to attend the trial of the Protestant pastors.

Mr. McNeil: The Bulgarian Government have not yet returned any written reply to the request of His Majesty's Legation for admission to the trial. The Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs at first informed His Majesty's Legation orally that two members of the Legation would be admitted as official observers, but later stated that all diplomatic missions in Sofia would receive only one card of admission, in the name of the Press Attaché. Verbal representations by His Majesty's Legation to the Bulgarian authorities have not succeeded in moving them to make an exception in our case, in spite of their previous promise.

Sir R. Ross: Will the Minister of State instruct whoever is allowed in to observe whether these unfortunate clergymen have been subjected to physical illtreatment?

Mr. McNeil: Our representative is keeping the most careful watch and will report fully.

Sir R. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now satisfied that the treatment accorded to the 15 Protestant pastors at present under arrest in Bulgaria is in accordance with Article 2 of the Peace Treaty.

Mr. McNeil: Until the trial is completed, it is impossible to say whether or not it involves a breach of the treaty, but the initial treatment of the 15 Protestant pastors gives cause for great concern.

Sir R. Ross: Will the Minister of State assure the House that the Government view with equal interest and distress the Communist persecution of clergy of all denominations?

Mr. McNeil: Of course, Sir. His Majesty's Government are concerned for all people, including people outwith religious denominations, who have been persecuted for their stand in the interests of freedom.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that clergy who are guilty of treason to their own countries should not take a knock like any ordinary chap?

Mr. McNeil: The point is that that country has treaty obligations to provide for free trial and to ensure that certain freedoms are observed.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman says that His Majesty's Government will keep close watch to see whether these trials involve a breach of the treaty, but if they do involve a breach of the treaty, what will His Majesty's Government do?

Mrs. Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Members of Parliament who are treacherous to their own country should also take the knock?

Sir Patrick Hannon: Will the Minister of State take every possible opportunity, through the United Nations or otherwise,

to make clear to the whole world the detestation of the people of this country of the treatment accorded these Protestant ministers in Bulgaria?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Feedingstuff Prices

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Food if he will now indicate when the new prices for animal feeding-stuffs will come into effect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill): I am not yet able to say.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the right hon. Lady say whether her Department have advised the Ministry of Agriculture about these new prices? Otherwise, how can the Minister of Agriculture discuss a price review with the farmers of this country?

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly, Sir. There is full co-operation between my Department and that of my right hon. Friend.

New Potato Imports

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food why the new potato import programme which was withdrawn has now been reinstated; and why the trade have been informed that the programme of conditions attaching to open individual licences may at any time be discontinued or suspended without warning, in view of the fact that the uncertainty thereby created makes it difficult for growers and merchants to carry on their business effectively.

Dr. Summerskill: We are allowing imports of new potatoes because they provide a welcome variety in the diet. It has always been a condition of open individual licences that they may be cancelled without warning and traders are reminded of this in case the home new crop is exceptionally early.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the recent loss to the taxpayer in the potato speculation of £10 million, will the right hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to stop the State trading in potatoes? Will she also remind him of Kipling's saying:
A servant when he reigneth is confusion to the end.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Potatoes (Tonnage Subsidy)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food if he intends restoring the consumer subsidy, as distinct from the growers subsidy, on potatoes, that was dropped in June, 1947.

Dr. Summerskill: I presume the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the tonnage subsidy at one time paid to licensed first buyers to enable them to sell at a price lower than the farmers' selling price. The answer is "No, Sir."

Major Legge-Bourke: Then will the right hon. Lady say why forms have been printed for the Ministry ready for this to be brought in?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me have one.

Potato Merchants' Accounts

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food how many officials from the Treasury and from his own Department have visited the Isle of Ely in connection with the 1941 ledger-balances of potato merchants' accounts; what has been the cost of these visitations; how many more are to be expected in connection with 1941 and subsequent years; and what will be the estimated cost involved.

Dr. Summerskill: Twenty officers of my Department have visited the Isle of Ely at one time or another in connection with these matters, which involve substantial sums and public money. None have gone from the Treasury. It would be a long and expensive task to work out the precise cost of these visits but a rough estimate is £2,000. Further visits, and hence their cost, will depend on the complexity of the cases yet to be examined.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that British Railways have destroyed all their records, and that the Ministry of Food refuse to recognise their responsibility until delivery can be proved, will the right hon. Lady say whether it is the intention of her Ministry to delay payment for things the delivery of which cannot be proved, and would it not be cheaper for the Ministry to cut their losses now?

Dr. Summerskill: No, I could not possibly say that. There are more accounts to look at. There were 19,000 in all

throughout the country and we will not commit ourselves without examining the rest.

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of Order, in view of the enormous number of growers who are affected by this, and the worry it is causing them, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Confectionery Manufacturers (Sugar)

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Minister of Food what is the additional percentage increase of sugar being allocated to manufacturers in the next period to meet the demands brought about by the de-rationing of sweets and chocolates.

Dr. Summerskill: We have given manufacturers an increase of 18⅓ per cent. on the quantity of sugar which they have been having to provide the present 4 oz. ration. There will be no further increase next period.

Mr. Harris: Does the right hon. Lady mean to say that confectionery manufacturers are getting approximately about 75 per cent. of their datum usage period figure and, if that is so, on what basis do her Department feel they can take off sweet rationing if the manufacturers are to receive only 75 per cent. of the datum period figure?

Dr. Summerskill: They are getting 71 per cent. but it is estimated that this will be sufficient, because the prices of certain sweets are so high that it is quite possible that many people will not be able to buy those particular ones and, therefore, more than this amount of sugar will not be needed.

Mr. Harris: From where did the Minister get the advice that 71 per cent. of the datum period figure would be sufficient to meet the de-rationing of sweets?

Dr. Summerskill: The advisers in my Department consult the trade, and both they and the representatives of this particular trade have business knowledge equal to that of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does this mean that the right hon. Lady's Department has fallen back on rationing by price?

Civic Restaurants

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of the decrease in the number of civic restaurants in three years from 1,373 to 678, he will take steps in conjunction with the local authorities concerned to investigate the reason for this decrease, in order that the decline may be arrested and that more such restaurants shall be provided to satisfy the needs of many people.

Dr. Summerskill: The establishment of civic restaurants must, I think, be left to local initiative and decision, but my Department and the Ministry of Health are very ready to help local authorities in this.

Mr. Piratin: While appreciating the Minister's readiness to help local authorities, may I ask the right hon. Lady if she is not aware of the fact that local authorities are not prepared to help themselves in the matter, and, therefore, would she carry out the request contained in the Question that she should consult with local authorities, perhaps with the assistance of her right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, to find out why civil restaurants are declining in number when they should be increasing?

Dr. Summerskill: I think the hon. Gentleman knows enough about local authorities to realise that we must leave them to settle their own affairs. If they like to come to us we are, of course, ready to help them.

Canadian Margarine

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether arising out of the lifting by Canada of export and import controls on all fats and oils, which will enable over 100 million pounds of margarine to be manufactured, he will make every endeavour to purchase the maximum amount of margarine from this source with a view to increasing the weekly ration to the people throughout this country.

Dr. Summerskill: If Canada manufactures margarine it will probably be for home consumption only. In any case, it is doubtful whether we should have dollars to spare from our other purchases to buy margarine from that source.

Mr. De la Bère: How are we to suppose that Canada will supply this country with unlimited food, both bacon and margarine, when we are always to be told the story about dollars? Surely, food comes first. Why not use some tactful common sense?

Enforcement Officer, Barking

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food whether his attention has been drawn to the observations of Sir Herbert Dunnico, Chairman of the Stratford Petty Sessional Court, on the methods adopted by the food enforcement officer for Barking; and what action he proposes to take.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. The matter has been considered and the officer is being transferred to other work.

Sugar

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the de-rationing of sweets and chocolate on 24th April and of the fact that a greater volume of sugar is now being imported from
non-dollar areas, he will now de-ration sugar in view of the public need and administrative convenience.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. So far as we can see at present the increase in sugar supplies from non-dollar areas will be sufficient only to meet the concessions announced last week.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Lady explain why it is that Holland, which is not at all well off, can have sugar off the ration? Why do we have to go on with this awful austerity under this Government? Let us get rid of the Government.

Mr. F. Harris: If the Ministry are de-rationing sweets on 71 per cent. of the basis usage, why did they not come to that conclusion before?

Dr. Summerskill: That is another question.

Wheatmeal and Oatmeal

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food the retail selling prices of wheatmeal and oatmeal respectively; and what element of subsidy each of these prices contains.

Dr. Summerskill: There is no fixed retail selling price for wheatmeal, and it is impossible to segregate a part of the flour subsidy as being appropriate to this particular type of flour. Oatmeal is retailed at a maximum price of 6d. per lb. This price will involve a small subsidy, the amount of which has not yet been finally determined.

Mr. Macpherson: As wheatmeal appears to retail at something like 2d. per lb., does not this represent a very severe discrimination against one of the natural foods of the country, and as oatmeal is almost entirely home-grown, cannot something be done to reduce this disparity?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman must realise that there are 300 lines of wheatmeal and that it is regarded as a speciality flour. It is very difficult, of course, to separate this flour from the ordinary flour which receives a subsidy, but we allow the merchant to charge the retailer the price of national flour plus the difference between the price of the speciality flour and the ordinary flour in 1939.

Mr. Macpherson: May I inform the right hon. Lady that I shall study that reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow?

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food what were the totals of sales ex mill of oatmeal in January, 1948, and January, 1949, respectively; also in the last quarters of 1947 and 1948, respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: Figures for January, 1949, are not yet available, but millers' deliveries of oatmeal for the four weeks ended 27th December, 1947, and 25th December, 1948, were 6,000 tons and 9,800 tons, respectively. The answer to the second part of the Question is 30,700 tons and 37,400 tons, respectively.

Herrings

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Food why thousands of crans of high-quality herring recently landed on the west coast of Scotland were sold for reduction to meal and oil, whilst at the same time large quantities of poor quality Norwegian herring were being imported for food; and if he will consider reversing the use to which Scottish and Norwegian herring are being put.

Dr. Summerskill: We import Norwegian herrings at this time of the year because British-caught supplies are variable in quantity and generally not enough to meet our needs. I cannot agree that the bulk of the Norwegian herrings are of poor quality. Most of them are used for kippering and kipperers are free to buy British or Norwegian herrings as they think best for their business.

Sir B. Neven-Spence: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the Scottish west coast herring caught at this time of year make incomparably better kippers than these rather drier varieties?

Dr. Summerskill: I wish the hon. Gentleman would persuade the kipperers of that.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SAILING TICKETS)

Sir R. Ross: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that Northern Ireland is handicapped in endeavouring to attract more visitors particularly by the fact that visitors to Northern Ireland sailing from United Kingdom ports have to have a sailing ticket whereas no such restriction is put on visitors sailing from United Kingdom ports to the Continent of Europe; and, in view of the hardship involved by this and other handicaps, if he will set up an inter-departmental committee with representatives of the Home Office, Board of Trade, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Civil Aviation, the British Transport Commission, British European Airways and the Government of Northern Ireland to consider what steps can be taken to encourage both the people of Great Britain and visitors to Great Britain to take holidays in Northern Ireland.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Experience has shown that sailing tickets are the best method of minimising inconvenience to passengers at peak periods when traffic exceeds capacity. Every endeavour will be made to arrange additional sailings whenever possible. The Departments and other agencies concerned are in constant touch with each other on questions connected with travel to Northern Ireland and I see no need for the appointment of an inter-departmental committee.

Sir R. Ross: Is the Prime Minister aware that the ships normally used between Great Britain and Northern Ireland have been diverted to routes to Dublin and to the Continent of Europe, and that this restriction on travel to Northern Ireland was unknown under any other Government in peace-time?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member knows some of the difficulties in regard to the checking of passengers to Northern Ireland owing to there being a frontier on the southern side of Northern Ireland. With regard to the other Question, perhaps the hon. Member will put it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Professor Savory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year several thousand people from this country were prevented from going to Northern Ireland because they could not get sailing tickets, and that they had to cancel the rooms they had taken in hotels and boarding houses, to the very great inconvenience of those people who were looking forward to receiving them?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also put that Question to the Minister of Transport.

Sir R. Ross: But the Minister of Transport will not take it.

SHOP AND OFFICE TENANCIES (INQUIRY)

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Attorney-General if he proposes to introduce legislation on similar lines as that of the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland, to protect the shopkeepers of England and Wales, whose insecurity of tenure is similar to that of shopkeepers in Scotland.

Mr. Janner: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that hardship is being suffered by many shopkeepers and tenants of office accommodation owing to the lack of security which they have in their tenancies; and if he will introduce appropriate legislation to remedy the position.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The tenancies of shops and office accommodation are among the

matters which are being considered by the Leasehold Committee. The Committee will deal with these matters in their interim report on business premises which they expect shortly to present. The question of legislation on this matter will be considered in the light of any recommendations which the report may contain.

Mr. Thurtle: May I take it that the Attorney-General is genuinely anxious to see that English tenant shopkeepers get the same standard of justice as Scottish tenant shopkeepers?

The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Janner: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to use the personal knowledge which I am sure he must have of these matters, in speedily remedying the position, as large rentals per week are being asked from tenants of shops and also from tenants of offices when their tenancies expire?

The Attorney-General: This matter has been referred to the Leasehold Committee, and we must await the results of their inquiry and their specific recommendations.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a large clothing firm from the North of England has taken over an entire building in Trafalgar Square and is coercing tenants of offices into making agreements for seven years and then reserving a right of option to terminate the tenancy at six months' notice?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Barley

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the present difficulties of farmers in disposing of barley; and what arrangements he has made to meet his undertakings relating to guaranteed prices and assured markets contained in the Agriculture Act, in view of the prospect that barley will continue to be a glut on the market.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I understand that some farmers are finding it difficult to sell their barley for malting, but the Ministry of Food are already buying


through approved merchants large quantities at the guaranteed price and are ready to accept all millable and potentially millable barley that may be offered to them. No further arrangements to meet undertakings under the Agriculture Act are therefore needed.

Mr. Donner: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether barley is still being imported into this country?

Mr. Williams: I hope so.

Pests Officers

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will define the functions of a county pest officer, a fox control officer, an assistant fox control officer and a rodent operative; and whether he will also give the number of such officials employed by his Department throughout the country and the salaries paid to them.

Mr. T. Williams: As the answer is necessarily long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Maclean: Can the Minister at any rate give the cost to the Exchequer and the total number of forms in triplicate, or otherwise, filled up in respect of each fox destroyed by his officials?

Following is the answer:

The functions of a county pests officer are to obtain, by systematic search, detailed information as to the degree and localities of infestations by mammal or bird pests within the county, to co-ordinate the operational work on the basis of the information so obtained, to investigate complaints of damage by such pests, to give advice to farmers and others on methods of control and, generally, to ensure that pests are kept under control on agricultural lands throughout the county.

There are 58 of these officers with salaries averaging £500 per annum.

There is only one fox control officer and two assistant fox control officers, all in Wales. The fox control officer co-ordinates the various fox control measures carried out throughout the Principality. The assistant fox control officers organise drives (and also, on occasions, take part in them), encourage the formation of fox destruction societies in the open hill sheep districts, and generally advise on the

measures to be taken to destroy foxes. One of the Ministry's assistant technical advisers for land pests destruction acts as fox control officer and he is assisted by one of the county pests officers and a former county pests officer. None of these officers receives any remuneration for these services.

A rodent operative is employed on the destruction of rats and mice in Ministry of Food depots and there are 75 of these operatives with an average wage of £5 5s. per week. In addition, there are the pest operators working under county agricultural executive committees. These operators are engaged on the actual destruction of rats, mice, rabbits, moles and other pests on agricultural land and the average wage paid to them is £5 per week. The numbers of these operators are constantly varying but on 1st April, 1948, they numbered 1,374.

Slaughtered Horses, Belgium

Mr. Challen: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, having regard to the fact that Belgian importers give a written guarantee that horses exported from this country to Belgium are exported for work and not for slaughter, he will investigate the circumstances in which horses disembarked from the s.s. "Aire" at Antwerp on 15th February, 1949, were taken to the Antwerp abattoir and were slaughtered in the presence of a chief inspector of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on 16th February, 1949.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I am baying inquiries made and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Challen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, if as the result of his inquiries he finds the facts to be true, whether some penalty should be attached to this breach of guarantee, to prevent this kind of thing from happening?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but it would be difficult to impose a penalty upon an importer resident in Belgium. What we could do, however—and I am considering the point at the moment, although I do not want to prejudice this case while inquiries are being made—would be to consider the possibility of refusing further permits to that importer.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not a fact that nearly all horses which have been exported to Belgium from this country as working horses have been killed almost immediately? Belgium does not want all these working horses we are sending.

Mr. Williams: As the hon. Member must be aware from a previous Question put to me, I stated then that horses were permitted to leave for Belgium only on the definite written understanding that they were to be for working purposes and not for slaughter.

Hill Cattle Subsidy

Mr. Randall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now announce the rate of hill cattle subsidy for England and Wales for 1949.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir. I have decided that the rate of subsidy shall be £4 per head for breeding cows and heifers suckling calves and £2 17s. 6d. per head for other eligible cattle. The necessary order under Section 14 (3) of the Hill Farming Act, 1946, will be laid before Parliament shortly.

Locusts

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to prevent the importation of four inch locusts in the leaves of cauliflowers which have been arriving from Italy, and what are the general safeguards against other pests on vegetables being imported from other sources.

Mr. T. Williams: The importation of a few locusts with vegetable produce has been reported, but I am advised that the possibility of the insect establishing itself in this country by this means is negligible. As regards the second part of the Question, I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Importation of Plants Order, 1947, which lays down the sanitary requirements governing the importation of vegetables.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the locusts do not improve the flavour of the cauliflower? Further, is he not aware that in this country we can grow all the cauliflowers we need for the home consumer? Why do we have to import them? Can he give me an answer. Then, Mr. Speaker, might I ask your guidance on a point of

Order? This Question was put down to the Ministry of Food who are responsible, and they seem to have shelved it on to the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I am very sorry.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY

Commissioners

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the ages of each of the present Forestry Commissioners; and when is each due to retire.

Mr. T. Williams: As the answer is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The ages of the present Commissioners and the dates when their periods of office terminate are:


Commissioner
Age
Termination of Appointment


Lord Robinson
65
28th November,1949


Sir William Taylor
66
Do.


J. M. Bannerman
47
Do.


Lord Radnor
53
Do.


Sir Samuel Strang Steel, Bt.
67
Do.


Sir Richard Cotterell, Bt.
41
24th July, 1950


Lloyd O. Owen
47
Do.


Rev. J. E. Hamilton
68
25th July, 1953


Major John Stirling
55
Do.


W. H. Vaughan
54
Do.

Camborne-Redruth District

Commander Agnew: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made with the examination of the possibility of acquiring suitable land for afforestation in the Camborne-Redruth district; and what the result is of the further consultations with the local authority referred to in his letter dated 22nd December, 1948, to the hon. Member for Camborne.

Mr. T. Williams: The Forestry Commission is now negotiating with owners of land in the district, and I hope that the result will be successful. A meeting with the Cornwall County Council Planning Committee has taken place, but it was decided that a more comprehensive meeting was necessary. This will take place on 7th March.

County Farm Institutes

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many county farm institutes include elementary forestry for farmers in their curriculum.

Mr. T. Williams: The primary purpose of county farm institutes is to provide full-time courses of instruction for those aiming at work of special responsibility in agriculture and horticulture, and elementary forestry for farmers is not normally included in the curriculum.

Commander Maitland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that owing to the loss of wealth to this country by the lack of knowledge of farmers in dealing with the small coverts that are to be found all over England, and which are not normally afforested, such a course would be of great value?

Mr. Williams: Yes, but departmental responsibility for instruction in forestry rests at present with the Forestry Commission. They have already five schools operating for training, two in England, two in Scotland and one in Wales.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that so far as other fields of education are concerned, such as the Young Farmers' Clubs, the Ministry of Education have some responsibility with the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry, and cannot the same apply in this case?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUE OF COMMONS CATERING

Missing Equipment

Sir W. Smithers: asked the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will give in convenient categories the amount and value of equipment missing from the Catering Department for each of the two calendar years ending 31st December, 1947, and 1948.

Mr. McEntee: There are a great number of different articles within the general term "Equipment" and to specify them in different categories would involve too much labour. The total number missing under the heading "Plate and Cutlery" at the date of stocktaking in 1947 was 1,234 and in 1948 the total was 1,784. Since those dates some of the missing articles have been recovered, and

the figures include articles broken and worn out. It is not possible to assess the value of these items, with the exception of a number of teaspoons, as they were purchased prior to the war and no details of prices paid are available.

Sir W. Smithers: Is no record kept of the amount of equipment under the control of the Kitchen Committee? Is there no record of how much is lost?

Mr. McEntee: Yes, there is a full record kept, and it is checked annually by a professional firm of stocktakers from outside.

Mr. Renton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the replacement value of these article is assessed, and if so, will he tell us what it is?

Mr. McEntee: These articles are looked upon, and always have been, as expendable articles. They wear out or get broken and they are replaced from time to time. All the replacements are shown in the books and the numbers are available for any hon. Member to see at any time.

Costs

Sir W. Smithers: asked the hon. Member for West Walthamstow, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, what was the cost of providing food, wages, light and fuel, respectively, for the two calendar years ended 31st December, 1947 and 1948, expressed as percentages of the total cost.

Mr. McEntee: Expressed as percentages of the total cost, the figures are as follows.

Food

1947–24 per cent.
1948–25.8 per cent.

Wages

1947–42.5 per cent.
1948–41.6 per cent. (Both these figures include National Insurance, superannuation, and cost of staff meals.)

There are no figures available in my Department in regard to the cost of the remaining services mentioned in the Question.

Sir W. Smithers: Does not that show a great want of accountancy in the Department and is the hon. Gentleman also aware that there is no need to ask any further supplementary questions—let the figures speak for themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Softwood (Public Purchases)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade to state as at the nearest convenient date the volume and value f.o.b. of bulk purchases of timber since 1st January, 1948; and the change in price per standard during this period.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I presume the hon. Member is referring to softwood, of which public purchases in the year 1948 amounted to 927,797 standards. It would not be in accord with normal practice to state contract prices, but the monthly Trade and Navigation Accounts give the total quantity and landed value of arrivals of all kinds of timber. In general the trend of prices in 1948 was downwards.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the President of the Board of Trade satisfied that the supply of timber is increasing and that the price will be reduced?

Mr. Wilson: I am certainly satisfied that timber is being bought as cheaply as possible and that we should see further reductions in price. I am not, however, satisfied with the supply on the softwood side.

Pins

Mr. Janner: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that pins used for commercial purposes are in short supply although clips are fairly plentiful; what is the reason for the shortage of pins; and when more will be available.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am aware that there is some shortage of pins because of the scarcity of the steel wire from which they are made, and because they are a good export. Clips are more plentiful because they can be made from non-ferrous metals. I cannot say how soon it will be possible to allocate more steel to the production of pins.

Japanese Textile Industry

Mr. Randall: asked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions, are taking place with the United States Government concerning the desirability of not compelling Japan to rely almost entirely on her cotton industry to maintain her economy.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the encouragement given by the Allied Supreme Command to the Japanese concentration on textiles to build up their export trade; and what directions on policy His Majesty's Government have given to the British representative on the Allied Supreme Command in this matter.

Mr. H. Wilson: General MacArthur is the Supreme Commander in Japan for all the Allied Powers. The framing of policy is the responsibility of the Far Eastern Commission in Washington, whose policy decisions are transmitted as directives to General MacArthur. His Majesty's Government is represented on the Far Eastern Commission, and by the United Kingdom Liaison Mission in Tokyo, which is in close and continuous contact with General MacArthur's Headquarters.
Textiles have always represented the major part of Japan's export trade, and proportionately they still do so. It is not, however, the case that the occupation authorities are encouraging this tendency. On the contrary, despite the limitations on heavy industry, General MacArthur aims at developing a more even balance of Japan's export trade between the various industries than has been the pattern hitherto. Moreover, although the proportion of textiles to other exports is now about the same as pre-war the volume of such exports is very greatly reduced. No discussions are taking place, at present, with the United States Government on this point.

Mr. Randall: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong fears now existing in Lancashire, and will not he do something to bring about some discussions whereby those fears which exist in Lancashire and in the industry may be allayed?

Mr. Wilson: I am well aware of the feeling and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been discussions between the two industries on this point.

Mr. Harold Davies: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in the pottery and silk industries we are aware of this problem and we urge the Government to get into economic negotiations with the United States about the situation in Japan as soon as possible?

Mr. Tolley: Does my right hon. Friend tell the House that from time to time the general policy to be pursued is discussed between His Majesty's Government and representatives in the Far East, and, if so, shall we have the opportunity of putting down Questions as to that policy?

Mr. Wilson: I hope to have the opportunity, in a Debate later this week, to make a rather fuller statement on this general question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until then.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given Private Notice.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has not my permission to ask it.

Mr. R. A. Butler: May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition? We understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. F. Maclean) had received permission to ask a Question on the subject of statements in America by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. May I ask whether you would reconsider the matter and permit my hon. Friend to ask a Question, as we on this side of the House attach the utmost importance to it?

Mr. Speaker: I find that proper notice was not given. I am supposed to receive notice at 12 o'clock. I did not see the Question until after 1 o'clock. I understand that it was on my table about 12.30, but I understand that it did not reach Downing Street until 1.30, and I felt obliged to withhold permission. I have indicated to the hon. Member and to the Prime Minister that I will allow the Question to be asked tomorrow.

Mr. Butler: Continuing that point of Order. We are naturally obliged to you, Sir, for permitting the Question to be asked tomorrow, but I understand that my hon. Friend had given notice at 10.30 this morning, and he has also shown me a letter saying that you did accept the Question. That is why we attach importance to the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, the notice did not reach me in proper time. It went somewhere else, and I am not responsible for that. In any case I had grave doubts

about whether the Question was in Order or not, because Question 75 on Wednesday's Order Paper very nearly covers it and I was advised that it was a very doubtful Question to allow. But I have said I will allow it tomorrow.

Captain Crookshank: With all due respect, this puts us in some difficulty. If an hon. Member receives a letter on your behalf saying you have accepted a Question and if the Minister is then notified that the Question is going to be put, that is all the procedure that is necessary, according to Erskine May. How is my hon. Friend, or anyone else, to know that a letter sent on your behalf has not in fact your approval?

Mr. Speaker: I did not realise at the time that notice had not been properly given. I thought everything was in Order. It was not, and therefore I withdrew my consent.

Mr. Driberg: While it is well understood that, by custom, the Leader of the Opposition, or the deputy leader, has some rights in the matter of Private Notice Questions, would you be good enough, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, to indicate broadly the reasons of urgency in the subject matter of this particular Question which led you to say that it is in Order as a back bencher's Question today, or tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot indicate what the Question was. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) can wait and hear tomorrow.

Mr. Driberg: With all respect, the subject matter of the Question has been indicated and if it had been handed up at the Table Office before 2.30 today, it would have been in Order for Wednesday. Is there any special urgency about it which makes it a Private Notice Question for tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: Probably the hon. Member will see. There may be a genuine view that there is some urgency that a public statement should be made on the matter.

Mr. Butler: May I continue this by saying that not only do we on this side of the House regard it as a matter of extreme urgency, but, further, that we were encouraged to he in our places to put our point of view by the fact that


my hon. Friend had received a definite intimation from you that his Question had been accepted, and that naturally led us to think that the Question would be asked?

Mr. Speaker: There, again, I must point out that I only heard about the Question at
half-past one and I thought all the proper procedure had been followed. I found that, apparently, it had not and that proper notice had not been given. I do not know when the Question arrived at my office, but, as I said, it was not there at a quarter-past 12 because I looked at my table and there was nothing on it, and I went upstairs.

Captain Crookshank: Could you say, Mr. Speaker, what is the latest time for this to be in Order, because evidently there has been a misunderstanding on this matter, a matter which we on this side of the House, and, I should say, the whole country, consider of enormous importance. It is the prospective repudiation of what the Under-Secretary of State said in an important speech in America. We should like to be guided, if you would be so good as to tell us what was wrong in the procedure which my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster adopted.

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have known by now that my office must have a certain amount of time to find out whether a Question is in Order or not. If there is a Question on the Order Paper which it is going to anticipate, that Question is out of Order. It does not take five minutes, but a considerable time, to look down all the Questions on the Order Paper. Therefore, I have laid down that it must receive my assent by 12 o'clock, and it is not my duty to go through all the Questions on the Order Paper to find out if they are all in Order, or not.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of Order. Is it not the case that the Leader of the Opposition, or the acting leader, if they really attach as much importance to the matter as has been indicated, have certain rights of their own in regard to Private Notice Questions which go beyond the rights of Private Members?

Mr. Speaker: I would have allowed the Question if I had not found that the procedure had not been properly followed.

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: Is it not a fact Sir, that the Question was in your office by 12 o'clock, although you were not there?

Mr. Speaker: Not that I know of. I do not know where the hon. Member sent it. I have no knowledge of that. I understand the Question went to the Table Office; that is not my office.

Mr. Maclean: The Table Office undertook to pass it on to you and, as far as I know, they had done so by mid-day.

Mr. Speaker: I could never accept delegated responsibility like that. The Question must come to my office and nowhere else. That is why the delay occurred.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSING

Mr. Speaker: "to amend the Housing Act, 1936; to promote the improvement of housing accommodation by authorising the making of contributions out of the Exchequer and of grants by local authorities; to amend the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, with respect to the amounts of contributions payable thereunder out of the Exchequer, and certain other enactments relating to the making of contributions out of the Exchequer in respect of the provision of housing accommodation; to authorise the making out of the Exchequer of contributions in respect of the provision of hostels and of grants in respect of building experiments; to extend and amend certain provisions of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, 1899, the Water Act, 1945, and the Building Materials and Housing Act, 1945; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Bevan; supported by Mr. Key, the Attorney-General, Mr. Glenvil Hall, and Mr. Blenkinsop; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business and on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), any such Private Business may be taken after Nine of the Clock.—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.39 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is another of those modest but useful little Bills which the Law Officers are accustomed to introduce. It contains nothing of a spectacular nature. I venture to think that it involves no element of political controversy whatever. Its object is to strengthen and codify the statutory arrangements for settling disputes in connection with the valuation of land and to ensure that in all cases where some form of valuation under statute is required—for instance, on the compulsory acquisition of land, on the assessment of the development or existing use value of land, or in regard to the valuation of land for the purposes of Estate Duty—there should be a single and consistent jurisdiction combining legal and technical valuation experience, with an appeal to the High Court and thence up, through the Court of Appeal, to the House of Lords, if necessary, on any matters of legal importance.
The first point about the Bill which I wish to make absolutely clear is that it in no way affects the code or codes of compensation or valuation which have to be followed in particular cases. It is not at all concerned with that matter. Consequently, in discussing the principles of the Bill, there is no need to concern ourselves with the question of whether the valuation should be on the basis, for example, of 1939 value or existing use value, or to what factors regard ought to be paid in making the valuation itself. These are all questions which are settled by the various codes under different statutes, and the question with which this Bill is concerned is not that of the principles upon which the valuation should be made, but who should make it.
The question with which this Bill is concerned is purely that of machinery in regard to the application of the existing codes. Hitherto most questions of this character, but not by any means all, have been referred to the official arbitrators, who are appointed under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation)

Act, 1919, by the Reference Committee. Hon. Members will recollect that the Reference Committee consists of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and that it is that committee which in its turn appoints the gentlemen who act as official arbitrators under the Act of 1919. There are at present two official arbitrators. They hold whole-time appointments, and they are, as they have always been, qualified surveyors of high standing.
I wish to say quite clearly that on the whole this system of arbitration has served the country very well during the 30 years or so in which it has been in existence, and in happier and more prosperous times I have, no doubt like the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, appeared on occasions before one or other of the official arbitrators. If I may say so with respect, I have always found them most careful and conscientious in the discharge of the duties assigned to them. I would certainly wish now, on behalf of the Government, and I feel sure on behalf of both sides of the House, to place on record our appreciation of the way in which these gentlemen, a succession of able and public-spirited people, have discharged the difficult and responsible duties which the 1919 Act imposed on them.
Indeed, the Committee presided over by Lord Uthwatt, which inquired into the question of compensation and betterment, reported in 1942 most favourably about the work which the official arbitrators had done hitherto. They went further and said that, in their view at that time, they thought that the system was one which could not readily be improved upon, and they did not propose any amendment to it. The Government would not wish at all to dissent from the conclusion of Lord Uthwatt's Committee in the circumstances which existed at that time, and if those circumstances had not changed they would not have contemplated the introduction of this Bill. We only propose an amendment of the existing system now because the circumstances have considerably changed, and later experience of the work both of the official arbitrators and of other tribunals has led us to believe that the machinery which is now proposed in this Bill would deal even more efficiently with the various classes of case which now arise.
The main defect under the existing machinery is that the official arbitrators, being themselves qualified only as surveyors and valuers, have no means of providing themselves with legal advice or assistance in regard to matters of law, or indeed of securing close co-ordination and consistency of decision with each other. As hon. Members will know, in matters of this kind difficult questions of law very often arise. I have appeared on a number of occasions before the official arbitrators armed with all sorts of legal text books and authorities in order to support legal principles, some of which I hardly understood myself, and some of which must have been very difficult of appreciation by arbitrators who did not pretend to have any legal qualifications. None the less, although the official arbitrators possessed no legal qualifications and had the benefit of no legal advice, they were called upon to give decisions involving quite difficult questions of law. Although it is true that there was provision for appeal to the High Court, but no further, by way of case stated, that was a restricted and in some respects not an altogether satisfactory form of appeal.
But not inconsiderable as the legal difficulties confronting the official arbitrators often were at the time Lord Uthwatt reported about the matter in 1942, legal difficulties and implications arising in connection with questions of valuation are now substantially greater. The whole basis of the code which the official arbitrators have to administer has been radically changed by the Town and Country Planning Acts passed in 1947. I would not seek to pretend that difficult and complex questions of law do not arise in connection with the administration of those Acts. The conception of existing use value, for instance, while simple enough as a conception, gives rise to questions of real difficulty in its application to particular cases. We have felt it to be of great importance in cases of that kind, in which real legal difficulties may arise, that the tribunal of first instance, which hears the witnesses and has in the first place to give the decision, should be one capable of giving an authoritative legal decision, a decision moreover which should be capable of appeal not only to the High Court, but if it involved a really important problem

which was thought worthy of further appeal, should be one which could, if necessary, go right up to the House of Lords.
It is, I think, unsatisfactory from all points of view that a surveyor sitting alone, without either legal qualifications himself or the benefit of legal advice, should be asked to decide a case after hearing legal arguments on both sides, and should have to decide that case on the basis of one view or another of the legal position. Where that is the position, and the decision in the first instance has to be given by somebody without legal experience although it involves legal points, the parties to the arbitration are often forced to the unnecessary expense of having a case stated and going to the High Court in order to get a decision based more firmly on legal grounds. That situation would not arise so often if the tribunal of first instance were one which possessed legal qualifications.
The present procedure is also objectionable in that it tends perhaps to produce a compromise decision before the tribunal of first instance. The official arbitrator sitting as a surveyor—I give this as a hypothetical case—hears an argument on one side suggesting that the valuation which is in dispute ought to be £1,000 on one particular view of the law. On the other side somebody says, "Not at all, that is the wrong view of the law; the proper view of the law is this"—and on that alternative view the valuation ought to be £2,000. There is perhaps the temptation on the part of a lay arbitrator in circumstances of that kind to give a decision that the valuation is £1,500. When that valuation is given nobody knows on which view of the law, if indeed upon either, it purports to be based.
That is unsatisfactory to the parties in the particular arbitration, and it is especially unsatisfactory since it provides no kind of guidance at all in future cases in which other persons may wish to raise the same point, and are unaware which basis has been accepted by the official arbitrator. It was considerations of that kind which led to the establishment of the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal. The experience—I think the very satisfactory experience—of the working of the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal led us to suggest to the House


the desirability of establishing similar machinery by this Bill to cover the whole range of statutory valuation.
The first two Clauses of the Bill constitute the Tribunal and provide that the Lord Chancellor may appoint the members of it. The president is to be a barrister of standing and the other members are to be in part lawyers and in part surveyors appointed after consultation with the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. But though these Clauses will provide a Tribunal capable of assessing legal arguments and of giving authoritative decisions on the legal aspect of the particular matters which are under examination before it, we have thought it of the utmost importance to maintain the informal and inexpensive and non-litigous procedure which has been customary before the official arbitrators for those cases which do not involve matters of legal difficulty.
In Clause 3 of the Bill complete elasticity is provided in regard to the composition of the tribunal which is to deal with particular cases. Where the case involves no difficulty at all of a legal nature, where perhaps the valuation problems themselves are not of especial complication, it will be open to the president of the tribunal to appoint a single surveyor to hear the case, very much in the same way as the official arbitrator does today. Where, on the other hand, the case involves a more complicated valuation, although no question of law, it will be open to the president to appoint two or more surveyors to deal with the matter. Where, finally, the case involves questions of law the president of the tribunal can appoint a legal member to sit with one or more surveyors in order that both the valuation and the legal aspects can be adequately dealt with.
Under the Bill as at present framed, the whole jurisdiction of the official arbitrators which arises under a number of statutes—I have a list of them here, but it is probably unnecessary to set them out—will be transferred to the new tribunal, as also will be the jurisdiction of the official referees under the Finance (1909–10) Act, in connection with valuation for estate duty purposes. Those will go automatically to the new Tribunal, and that will cover the great majority of cases with which the Tribunal will have to deal. But under Clause 4 there is

power, by means of an Order in Council—which will have to be laid, and which would be subject to negative prayer—to transfer to the new Tribunal any jurisdiction of the same nature vested in other bodies.
There are one or two other bodies. I have mentioned one, the War Damage Valuation Appeals Tribunal. That is a case which it may possibly be convenient to transfer to this new body. There is the General Claims Tribunal, which dealt with claims arising out of the war and which is largely coming to the end of its work. There are one or two other special cases of that kind to which we desire to give consideration, and in connection with which we want to have the power, if necessary, to transfer them to the new body in order to establish a single and consistent code of procedure in regard to them all.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Is it contemplated that the Central Land Board shall be regarded as a statutory tribunal, and that matters before it should be referred to the Lands Tribunal?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. That is not in mind.
It only remains for me now to add—and having the qualities of an angel I fear to tread upon this ground—that the Bill extends to Scotland. In Scotland the intention is that a separate Tribunal may be established and in Scotland the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Secretary of State will assume the functions which are vested in the Lord Chancellor so far as concerns England and Wales. The Bill makes provision for the Act to be brought into operation on different dates in regard to England and Scotland. The Secretary of State will decide, according to the number of cases which appear likely to arise in Scotland, if and when it is necessary to set up a new Tribunal to deal with those matters in Scotland.
We have thought that it is desirable, at any rate in the case of England and Wales, to set up a Tribunal as soon as may be in order that it may be able to deal, for instance, with the claims to compensation out of the £300 million fund in respect of the loss of development value. When the Tribunal has been established we think it will provide a compact, consistent and tidy system


which will be able to deal authoritatively with all the questions coming before it and which, by reason of the fact that it will be a single tribunal, will produce consistency of decision throughout this field of valuation; and by reason of that consistency may perhaps reduce the number of disputed cases. At all events, we think this is a piece of machinery which will be useful in facilitating a just decision on those claims which are the subject of dispute.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: As the Attorney-General said, this is a noncontroversial Measure. We are indebted to him for a very clear exposition of its provisions. It is something more to us than a non-controversial Measure, because it is a very welcome Measure. We recall with what tenacity during the Debates on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the Government resisted the Amendments moved from this side of the House with the object of giving a reference to an official arbitrator in the case of disputes affecting the question of loss of development value. It was not until such Amendments were inserted in the Town and Country Planning Act in another place that the Government gave way and finally accepted that there should be a reference to an official arbitrator so far as loss of development rights was concerned. The official arbitrator takes the place for that purpose of the Central Land Board in whom jurisdiction was vested by the Town and Country Planning Bill as it originally appeared before this House.
I am inclined to agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said regarding the Report of the Uthwatt Committee. Had things remained as they were in 1942, I have very little doubt but that the system which has gone on for a great many years—of an official arbitrator appointed by the panel consisting of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors—would have continued to prove satisfactory. But I take it that the main reason for the introduction of this Bill and for the establishment of a tribunal, not only with professional qualifications but with judicial qualifications as well, is to be found in the inclusion in the

matters which will go before this Tribunal of the disputes referred to in Clause 1 (3, d) of the Bill. That is to say:
any disputes arising in relation to the determination of the development values of interests in land by the Central Land Board or other authority prescribed under Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.
That, as I understand it, relates to claims against the £300 million fund for loss of development value.
We think that it is perfectly right and proper that there should be established a tribunal with judicial as well as professional qualifications for the reasons which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so clearly stated to the House. What we are not so clear about, however, is why when we get to a stage further in the Town and Country Planning Act and when it comes not to assessing the less of development value but to the assessment of development charges under the Act, apparently reference is not to be permitted to this tribunal of a dispute relating to development charge. We are a little puzzled about, that. Apparently, the final and ultimate assessment of development charge is to remain in the hands of the Central Land Board. I should have thought that there certainly was a case for putting in a provision during the Committee stage of this Bill that disputes with reference to the levying of development charges might also be referred to the Tribunal.
We think that this is an admirable type of tribunal for dealing with questions of this kind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was not, I think, in the House during the Committee stage of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) took part in the discussions. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to consider whether he would bring to the notice of the Minister of Health the provisions of this Bill. This Bill provides that there shall be a tribunal with judicial qualifications for dealing with disputes regarding loss of development value and for assessing compensation upon the compulsory acquisition of land. But it is only a fortnight ago that the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill was before us and tribunals had to be found for deciding questions, for example, of what is the reasonable rent of controlled premises or whether all or part of the premium paid for the possession of premises at any time


since 1939 should be recoverable. It would seem to us that questions of that character also need a tribunal with some judicial qualifications. But when that view was pressed from these benches last week the Minister of Health said:
The county court is no better than a lay tribunal of this sort in assessing the facts.
Later he said:
Once we allow appeals against the tribunals on points of law, Members in all parts of the House know that a forest of litigation would start at once and the tribunals would be lost on it. It is intended that these tribunals should be simple tribunals, arbitrating about matters of immediate and particular fact in the relations between families in a variety of different circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1304–5.]
It does not seem to me that the argument for the purely lay tribunal is any stronger in the case of comparatively poor persons who may or may not have paid exorbitant premiums to obtain possession of premises during the last 10 years.
It does not seem to me that there is very much difference in principle between that and the assessment of compensation for the loss of development rights or for the compulsory acquisition of land for public purposes. I would, therefore, commend to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that when we get to the Report stage of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Bill the Minister of Health might be informed of the proceedings on this Bill with a view to the establishment of a somewhat similar tribunal, a tribunal with both judicial and professional qualifications for dealing with the equally complex questions which, in my view, are bound to arise under the Minister of Health's Bill. This Measure is welcomed to us for the reasons I have stated and, subject to a few small points we may wish to discuss in Committee, we shall assist in getting it on to the Statute Book.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: There can be no doubt that the determination of development value under the Town and Country Planning Act involves by itself sufficiently complicated considerations to justify the creation of land tribunals to deal with them. I feel a certain sympathy with the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) in his view that the determination of disputes as to development

charge could appropriately and reasonably be referred to the Lands Tribunal, at least in certain cases. Reading the provisions of this Bill, it at first appeared to me that the explicit references to disputes in regard to development value being referred to the Lands Tribunal meant that it was intended to exclude disputes arising as to the determination of the development charge. But I formed the view, and indeed the hope, that it might be possible, under Clause 4, for the Central Land Board to refer, to the Lands Tribunal difficult questions arising in regard to the assessment of the development charge.
It seems to me that the Central Land Board may be a statutory tribunal under the definition of such a tribunal given in the Bill, and the matter of determining the proper development charge is one which I should have thought could sometimes be very usefully referred to the Lands Tribunal. After all, the greater part of the work which the Central Land Board is to perform in determining the appropriate development charge is the determination of the value of planning permission. The value of planning permission, which is the main factor under the Town and Country Planning Act to which the Central Land Board must have regard in assessing the development charge, is a matter very appropriate for the Lands Tribunal contemplated under this Bill. I would ask the Government to bear in mind whether it might not be well when the time comes to consider the extension of the jurisdiction of the Lands Tribunal by Order in Council, to reflect upon the desirability of asking and even encouraging the Central Land Board in certain cases to refer to the Lands Tribunal difficult questions arising out of the assessment of the value of planning permission and the assessment of the development charge.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Like my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) I welcome the introduction of this Bill, which I consider to be both good and necessary. It has been clear for some time to those interested in these matters that the task imposed by Section 60 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, would require some reinforcement of the ranks of official arbitrators. There is a five-year programme for evolving the


Treasury scheme for payments to persons whose interests in land are depreciated by reason of the effects of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, and three of those five years, that is to say, from June, 1949, until 1952, are to be devoted to matters of valuation and arbitrations arising thereunder. It is reasonably clear that the Tribunal here set up will be pretty busy during that three-year period in hearing arbitrations on the subject of the assessment of development values for the purposes of the computation of claims upon the scheme. That important matter is, however, a temporary one; by 1952, that work will be finished, and there will remain 12 months for the actual making of the Treasury scheme, for securing the approval of Parliament, and, if necessary, Parliamentary Amendments to it.
The other matter to which reference has been made both by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) is a continuing consideration; and I was specially glad to hear the hon. Member opposite, who has great experience of these matters, echo what we on this side of the House have always said in regard to the desirability of there being an appeal against the determination of development charges. The computation to be made under Section 70 of the Act in regard to the levying of a development charge is not precisely the same as the computation of the loss of development value, which is the foundation for a claim upon the £300 million fund. Nevertheless the determination of a development charge involves the computation of the difference in the value of land with the benefit of planning permission and without that permission, and thus, of course, involves matters on which even expert valuers may differ.
There is no precise science of valuation, and no competent valuer has ever suggested that there is. If, therefore, there is provision for arbitration between the views of two expert professional valuers in regard to the loss of development values for the purpose of a claim upon the Fund, it is extremely difficult in logic to see why there should not be a similar provision for arbitration between two different, though equally honest and expert, views taken by professional valuers in regard to the benefit of land respectively with and without planning permission.
I am afraid I cannot altogether echo the view of the hon. Member for Edge Hill about the inclusion of the Central Land Board as a statutory tribunal. I entirely agree with him that the definition in Clause 4 (7) ought to include the Central Land Board. The reason that it does not, in spite of the hon. Member's interpretation, is to be found, I assume, in the words "judicial determination." As I understand the viewpoint normally taken by the learned
Attorney-General, he would not be disposed to consider that the Central Land Board, in computing valuations, is discharging a judicial function, and, for that reason, he deems it not to be included in the expression "statutory tribunal." I am glad to see that the right hon. and learned Gentleman assents to that, and confirms my interpretation of his view. I personally have always taken the view that these matters should be dealt with rather more judicially, in the sense that there should be an appeal against the determination of the development charge. If there were such an appeal, and if provision is at any time to be made for such an appeal in the Town and Country Planning Act, this Bill provides the ideal machinery for it. Though the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not gone as far as we would like in this matter, he has, at any rate, by this Bill provided the means whereby Parliament may put into effect any change of mind which it might hereafter make.
May I say a word in regard to the composition of the Tribunal? I think it will be generally agreed that it is right to add a legal element to the traditional arbitration by skilled surveyors. It is of course clear that the legal complexities, not only of the computing of development values under the Town and Country Planning Act, but of the assessment of compensation in respect of compulsory acquisition are considerably greater now under the relevant Sections of the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act than they were under Section (2) of the 1919 Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act. As the House knows, under that Act it was primarily a question of assessing the market value on the basis of the amount which the land would realise if sold in the open market by a willing seller. Though that, of course, could and sometimes did, arouse matters of legal difficulty, such matters of legal difficulty


are far greater under the modifications of Town and Country Planning Act which imposes certain rather complex rules to be followed in the assessment of compensation.
There are one or two small points which I wish to refer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In Clause 3 (2) provision is made, in certain cases, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, for one member sitting alone. I take it that it is not intended that a lawyer member should ever sit by himself.

The Attorney-General: indicated assent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman because it appeared to me that under that Clause such power could he given, though it would perhaps be unreasonable in my opinion, for a lawyer to sit alone to determine valuation questions.

The Attorney-General: I nodded my agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but perhaps I ought to reserve the possibility that there might be a purely legal question arising in the course of valuation. In that case, the president might nominate only a legal arbitrator. I imagine that such cases would be very few and far between. If any element of valuation arose on the monetary side, the legal member would always be assisted by one who had professional knowledge.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Of course, in the exceptional case to which he refers, that would, I agree, be an entirely proper proceeding.
In Clause 3, there is provision for a majority decision which, as I understand it, is intended to get away from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as a habit of splitting the difference; but, of course, he will agree that the habit of splitting the difference, or of adjusting the average, as I prefer to call it, on purely valuation matters is quite a proper course. With great respect to him, the course normally taken by an arbitrator in the circumstances which he had in mind—where there is a different valuation in accordance with which of two legal interpretations is correct—is to make two alternative findings of amount and to leave it to procedure by case stated to see which, in fact, is right in law. But on a purely valuation matter, there being no precise science of valuation, it

is, of course, quite proper that the average should be struck between what two different valuers might think was the correct figure. Perhaps the Financial Secretary would elucidate to the House the application of line 21 of Clause 3 (4) which reads:
given on a review by way of appeal of the previous decision of another person.
Reference is made in Clause 4 to the other statutory tribunals, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to two which are obviously relevant in this context—the War Damage and the General Claims Tribunals. There is a third tribunal which some of us hope might, perhaps, be wound up in due course in the future and have its function transferred to this more expert body. I refer to the tribunal already mentioned by my right hon. Friend, the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunal, whose expectation of life was originally given by the Minister of Health as expiring in 1947. This Lands Tribunal, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, has a statutory requirement of legal qualifications among its members. It has more than that; it has two other things for which we pressed in regard to the rent tribunals. It has power to award costs and its decisions are subject to appeal.
All those very proper things which were urged from this side of the House in respect of the rent tribunals have, in fact, been included on his own initiative and by his own volition by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in regard to the Lands Tribunal. The hon. and learned Attorney General is, of course, an eminently reasonable person—all lawyers are—but it is difficult, even in one's most courteous and non-controversial moments, to apply exactly the same description to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Therefore, may I urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to breathe some of his spirit of reasonableness upon his right hon. Friend in order that we may have the sort of improvements in those tribunals to which my right hon. Friend has already referred?
There is one other small point to which I was going to refer in the absence of any representatives of the Liberal Party who normally like to look after the interests of Wales. However, I see that the hon. and learned Member for


Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) is now here. My recollection is that under the 1919 Act, or, perhaps, under the rules made thereunder, there was a requirement that one of the official arbitrators should have a knowledge of the Welsh language. I do not know whether any provision is made for that in this Bill, but it may be that it is a point which, in the interests of the Principality, the Government may wish to look into. Having said that, may I add my tribute to what was said by the Attorney-General in regard to the great value of the work done for the last 30 years by the arbitrators appointed under the 1919 Act, and wish the new tribunals every success in the labours that lie ahead of them?

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: There is only one question which I wish to ask the Attorney-General, and that is whether, in deciding the composition of this Tribunal, it has ever been considered that the Institute of Auctioneers and Valuers should have some nomination. I see that Clause 2 (2) says that the selection
shall be barristers-at-law or solicitors of the like standing and the others shall be persons who have had experience in the valuation of land appointed after consultation with the president of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Perhaps I ought to declare my interest. I am a Fellow of the Auctioneers Institute and have had something to do with the valuation of land. With respect to my friends the surveyors, I think there are more competent valuers in the Auctioneers Institute than in the Surveyors Institute, and I suggest that members of the Auctioneers Institute should be available for selection for the Lands Tribunal.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I am sure everyone welcomes this Bill by which, if the Central Land Board were otherwise constituted, the old Adam of the official arbitrator could be replaced by two Eves.
There are two points that I should like to raise. First, I find it hard to agree with hon. Members opposite in their suggestion that because the question of claims to compensation under the Town and Country Planning Act is appropriate for this Tribunal, so also is the question of development charges. Claims to compensation, in the nature of the case, raise

more difficult questions and are likely to involve questions of law which do not occur in the same way as regards development charges. I suggest that the reason is that a claim to compensation involves not only the valuation of the land at its existing use, not only the question of its value with planning permission, but also the question of the likelihood of that particular piece of land being used for this, that or the other purpose. There is an element of probability in those cases which cannot exist as regards a development charge. A development charge only involves two questions, both of valuation, both questions of fact and proper for decision as questions of fact.
My second point is this. I hoped when I saw the title of this Bill that it would go rather further and cover more ground than it actually does. I do not know if we shall hear the Lord Advocate in reply, but I believe that the Land Court in Scotland is concerned with other matters than the Lands Tribunal in Scotland will be. By setting up this Lands Tribunal we are going one step forward, but I hope that in this, as in other cases, that one step forward will not mean that we shall neglect the possibility of further progress.
I have long had it in mind that there were questions about the tenure of land and house property in this country which call for decision by some tribunal. Whether and to what extent such a tribunal should be a legal or a lay one, it is perhaps premature to consider now. I have particularly in mind the vexed question of what are commonly called tied houses and tied cottages, where it has always seemed to me that the only excuse for retaining them could be necessity, and that the question of whether such tenure was really necessary was a question of fact that ought to be decided by some tribunal set up for the purpose.
I believe that in a limited field—and I speak only as a layman in these matters—the Land Court in Scotland exercises some functions of that sort in connection with small properties and smallholdings. Whether it does or not, I hope that at some time or another a land court or other tribunal will be set up in this country, preferably on a local basis, to deal with that very difficult question which, to the knowledge of us in


this House, causes much hardship to people who are affected by it and are often in humble circumstances.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is often my fortune—whether good or bad I do not quite know—to follow the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), but I do not propose this afternoon to follow him over the interesting fields into which he entered. I could not claim to speak with any knowledge at all about the effect of this Bill in Scotland, nor do I think it would be appropriate on this occasion to make any observations on his comments on tied houses, in which I know he takes a particular interest with regard to a particular portion of his constituency where they deal with iron and steel.

Mr. Mitchison: May I remind the hon. and learned Member that I am also interested in the agricultural aspects of that matter?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and learned Member's interests are even more widespread than I had imagined.
I wish to support the argument put forward first by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) and then by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine), which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering seemed to try to answer but, in my opinion, with singularly little success; that is, that this Tribunal should be charged with the responsibility of arbitrating with regard to development charges as well as with regard to development values. In that connection, I ask the Attorney-General to hear in mind one thing which perhaps led to the difference of treatment when the Town and Country Planning Bill was before this House and before another place.
If my recollection is right, it was originally intended that the assessment of development charges should be flexible, that 100 per cent. should not be assessed in every case, and that that flexibility might be affected by considerations of policy. Of course, if that were the position it might be said to be inappropriate to have a tribunal entering upon the field. But now all that has gone. The development charge is to be 100 per cent. and not less; that is made by regulations, and it is the declared policy of the Government. Once

that conclusion is arrived at, it seems to me to be just as appropriate that in case of disputes, development charges should come before this Tribunal as questions in relation to the development value.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering sought to distinguish between the two different problems which would come before the Tribunal, but in both cases surely the Tribunal will have to assess questions of fact although, as the hon. and learned Member knows, questions of fact are often intermixed with questions of law. In both cases the Tribunal will, first of all, have to determine so far as it can what is the existing use value. In the case of claiming on the £300 million fund they will have to determine what the owner of the land has lost by reason of being restricted to existing use value. In the case of a dispute as to the development charge, the existing use value will have to be determined to arrive at the value of planning permission.
I should have thought that in both cases there might be a conflict which would be between, in one instance, the Central Land Board and the person wishing to develop—in both cases a conflict which could well be decided by or brought before a tribunal—and a conflict also as to what was the value of the land with planning permission in the case of the development charge. I can conceive of no adequate argument for the exclusion of a dispute on a matter of this sort from adjudication by this Tribunal and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell us, even if the Government cannot now state that they will accept that addition to the scope of this Bill, that they will at least give the most serious consideration to it before the Committee stage.
I have one other minor point to put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The appeal here from the Tribunal will be by way of case stated, and by way of case stated to the High Court. It is provided in the Bill that there will be no further appeal from the High Court without the leave of the High Court or the Court of Appeal. Is it intended to limit the ultimate appeal to the Court of Appeal? If it is not so intended I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he should add the words "With the leave of the House of Lords" because there may be a case—it has happened in the past—where the Court of


Appeal has refused leave and the House of Lords has granted it. I merely draw the attention of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to this point so that we may perhaps save time in the Committee stage. The wording of this Clause would seem to imply, if not to express, that the Court of Appeal should be the final Court to decide whether or not an appeal can go any further.

4.42 p.m.

The Attorney-General: If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I will first take the last point of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). We shall certainly give sympathetic consideration to it. The intention unquestionably is that there should be the possibility of appeal, with leave, to the House of Lords in the more difficult cases. The hon. and learned Member recognised that the other point which he raised, in regard to the possibility of transferring from the Central Land Board to the new Tribunal the assessment of development charge, was a matter which enlarged the scope of the Bill. Of course, that is so. This Bill deals with the assessment of compensation, not of charges. Moreover, this Bill does not purport to send to appeal anything which is not appealable already either to the official arbitrators or to one of the other tribunals which may be brought within the scope of the Bill.
All this Bill purports to do is to substitute the new Tribunal as the authority for determining questions which can already be submitted by way of an appeal either to the official arbitrator or to one of the other bodies. Under the existing law, as the hon. and learned Member quite rightly pointed out, the development charge is assessed by the Central Land Board without any question of appeal at all. It is not a matter which forms a contested question before them in the sense that matters may be referred to the official arbitrators or the other bodies. The view that His Majesty's Government have taken about this matter is that the Central Land Board must be supreme in regard to the assessment of development charge, in connection with which questions of policy as to land utilisation and so forth might arise.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that under the regulations which are made pursuant to the Town and

Country Planning Act the charge is at present normally assessed at 100 per cent. and the possibility of having regard to questions of policy in connection with land utilisation and so forth is largely excluded by the regulations in their present form. I do not know, and I am not attempting to suggest it is likely to happen, but under the provisions of the Act it would be possible for some other Government to take a different view about that and to alter the regulations in those respects. If that course were taken, as the hon. and learned Member agrees, it would be quite inappropriate to refer the assessment of the charge to a Tribunal such as this which, of course, would not be concerned with questions of policy in any way.
Moreover, hon. Members who have dealt with this aspect of the matter will no doubt recollect that the whole problem of appeal on the assessment of development charge was very fully discussed both in this House and in another place. In another place a different view was taken in the course of the Committee stage from that which had been adopted by this House, but when the matter came back to this House, this House thought it right to restore to the Bill the provisions which represented the view they had originally formed about this matter, that is to say the view that this matter should be dealt with by the Central Land Board without appeal to an outside tribunal. In face of that very recent decision by Parliament on this matter I venture to suggest that it would be outside the scope of this modest, and I am glad to think non-controversial, Bill to attempt to reopen that whole question.
I will pass on to deal with the question raised by the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) in regard to the possibility of transferring to the new Tribunal the work which is at present undertaken by the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals. The cases dealt with by those tribunals very rarely involve any question, certainly not a difficult question, of law at all. One very rarely has to consider in those cases the kind of legal problem which often arises in connection with the valuation of land. Where, in fact, the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals do proceed upon some completely mistaken view of the law there is a legal remedy; the matter can be brought before the Divisional Court with the possibility of appeal


further and the law can be ascertained and the tribunals can be given directions.
The fact that there has been a very small number of cases of that kind in the Divisional Court perhaps suggests, in regard to the enormous number of cases which are being handled by the Furnished Houses Rent Tribunals, that on the whole their decisions are regarded as fair and satisfactory by all parties concerned.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the right of appeal is extremely limited in such cases, and that if there were the same power of appeal as given under this Bill there would be a great many more appeals?

The Attorney-General: I would not attempt to dispute that for a moment. The appeal in those cases is more limited than that which arises under this Bill. That is undoubtedly so. But appeals can be brought before the Divisional Court; appeals can be taken by way of certiorori or mandamus and from time to time appeals are brought—I am involved in one tomorrow—but the number of cases in which there has been an attempt to bring the matter before the Divisional Court is very small in relation to the total number of cases which have been dealt with by the tribunals.
The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) raised the question whether it would be possible to include in Clause 3 a reference to the Auctioneers Institute. We have referred in the Bill to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors because that is the body which is referred to in the Act of 1919 and we have sought as far as may be to follow the provisions of that Act in that respect, but of course there is nothing to prevent the Lord Chancellor appointing a member of the Auctioneers Institute if, after consultation with the President of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, he thought that was an appropriate course.
The hon. Member for Hertford raised another point which was, I think, a drafting and Committee point and if he will forgive me I will not take up the time of the House by dealing with the point now. I have the answer, but it is a little involved and we can, perhaps, deal with it in the Committee stage—

Mr. Walker-Smith: My intention was simply to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman notice of the point.

The Attorney-General: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member. I have now provided myself with the information which would enable me to give him the answer, but this point is a little involved. There remains, finally, the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in regard to the Land Court in Scotland and the question of tied cottages. The proposals which my hon. and learned Friend had in mind were, perhaps, a little outside the scope of the Bill as at present framed. Since they involve treading on Scottish ground I am going to avoid dealing with them, save just to say this, that there is no intention so far as this Bill is concerned of replacing the existing Land Court in Scotland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. Pearson.]

Orders of the Day — LANDS TRIBUNAL [MONEY]

Considered in Committee of the Whole House under Standing Order No. 84.—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish new tribunals to determine in place of official arbitrators and others certain questions relating to compensation for the compulsory acquisition of land and other matters and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of remuneration of members, officers and servants of any tribunal established by the Act, of travelling and subsistence allowances of members and superannuation allowances of past members of any such tribunal, and of other expenses of any such tribunal (including payments to persons sitting as assessors); and
(b) of compensation to persons suffering loss of office or employment, or loss or diminution of emoluments, which is attributable to the transfer of any jurisdiction to any such tribunal by or under the Act."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to confirm and give effect to an agreement made between the Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland with a view to assimilating the burdens on the Exchequer of the United Kingdom and the Exchequer of Northern Ireland in respect of certain social and allied services, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums payable under or by virtue of the said agreement from the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND AGREEMENT) BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I rise to make an inquiry of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to a point which I should have raised, had I been in time, during the Committee stage. It is upon the interpretation of the Schedule to the Bill, to which I addressed myself during the Second Reading Debate. Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Bill tells us that if in respect of any financial year the total net Exchequer cost in Northern Ireland is less than 2½ per cent. of the total net Exchequer cost in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that is, of the social services referred to in the Bill—then there is a transfer of 80 per cent. of that amount from the Northern Ireland Exchequer to the Imperial Exchequer, or, vice versa, if the proportion is something more than 2½ per cent. It appears from paragraph 2 (iii) that this proportion has been ascertained, not with regard to the insured population only, but with regard to two factors, one being the total population of Northern Ireland in its relation to the population of the United Kingdom as a whole, and the other factor being what is called the "taxable capacity."
Now, the right hon. Gentleman, in replying to the Second Reading Debate, rather indicated that the calculation of

these two factors was a matter which would not arise until the Agreement came to be revoked in three years' time, but in point of fact this paragraph 2 (iii) clearly indicates that these two factors have already been taken into account, because it speaks of the proportion which, at the date of this Agreement, the population and taxable capacity of Northern Ireland bore respectively to the total population and total taxable capacity of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So it is clear that these two factors, which govern the whole of the financial provisions of this Agreement, have already been taken into consideration in drafting the Agreement set out in the Schedule. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain to us how it is possible to relate the figure to two factors either of which may vary and both of which may vary, and may on occasions vary in opposite directions. Until the right hon. Gentleman has explained how it is possible for this to be done, I do not think that the House or the public can have a clear understanding of the financial basis of the Bill.

4.58 p.m.

Professor Savory: I should like to point out what I think is extremely important—that this Bill was anticipated in full by the Unemployment and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1946, and I think that paragraph 7 (2) and the Schedule to that Act has a very relevant bearing upon this question. It says:
This Agreement shall remain in operation until superseded by a further Agreement between the Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury and the Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland who shall consult together as to the extension of this Agreement to comprehend so far as is found to be practicable in the then existing conditions the services covered by the Family Allowances Act, 1945, the National Insurance Act, 1946, and the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, and the Bill at present before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and known as the National Health Service Bill.
So this Bill only carries out what had been clearly anticipated in the previous Measure.
I think we should insist upon what was said during the Second Reading Debate, that this Bill is in no sense a subsidy to Northern Ireland. The net amount paid by Northern Ireland since the


Northern Ireland Government came into existence in 1922 is no less than £194 million sterling. That is the net payment paid by Northern Ireland as a contribution to the British Treasury. I feel obliged to emphasise this point because it was only this morning that I read in the Irish papers that a deputation had been received by the Congress of the United States insisting that subsidies are given to Northern Ireland which are derived from American money and imploring Congress to refuse to make any further grant to the British Government for so long as partition existed. I think that it is very important in this House to deny—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman is going very much too wide on Third Reading.

Professor Savory: I apologise. I felt that it was necessary to point out that we have made a net contribution of £194 million since 1922.

5.1 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): May I first deal with the observations made by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)?
I do not read into my winding-up speech in the Debate on the Second Reading the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has placed upon it. I then said:
It is true that, in my very brief speech, I did not mention the fact that taxable capacity had also to be taken into account; but then I did not refer to the fact that a review would take place at the end of three years. I did not pretend to cover everything."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 1750.]
I went on to say that, when such a review does take place, both factors would be taken into account. Both have been taken into account in fixing the figure which appears in the Agreement; the review in three years' time will be along the same lines.
As I said when we were discussing this matter on Second Reading, it is not intended, and indeed it would be, in fact, quite impossible, to derive an exact figure from this formula. As the right hon. Gentleman quite properly said, the variations may cut both ways. Even in arriving at the figure of 2.5 per cent., which is the one in the agreement in the Schedule to the Bill, the exact proportions

have not been taken. The figure is an approximate one and one which we think is just and fair; it has certainly been agreed to both by the Imperial Government and the Government of Northern Ireland. Therefore, it seems to me that when the Joint Exchequer Board and those responsible come to discuss this in three years' time, they should have no real difficulty in taking the two factors into account and yet arriving at a just and fair figure.
What the hon. Member for Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) has said is correct. This year, the amount which Northern Ireland will pay by way of Imperial contribution is between £21 million and £22 million. Northern Ireland always has met her obligations to the full. I think that it is only fair that someone from this Box should acknowledge that and make it clear to the House, the country and the world that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that, as part of the United Kingdom, it meets her obligations to the full.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide, in connection with the Festival of Britain, 1951, for conferring further powers on the British Transport Commission and the London County Council, for the making by the Minister of Transport of grants in respect of expenses incurred by or on behalf of those bodies for suspending or restricting the use by the public of certain streets and for other matters, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Minister of Transport in making grants towards meeting—

(a) expenses incurred by or on behalf of the said Commission and the said Council respectively in or by reason of the exercise of the powers conferred on them by the said Act;
(b) expenses incurred by or on behalf of the said Council in connection with traffic arrangements certified by the Minister of Transport to be occasioned by the chief exhibition held or to be held on the south bank of the Thames as part of the said Festival."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC WORKS (FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AUTHORISED WORKS.)

5.5 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, after "shall" to insert:
without the consent of the Minister of Transport.
Subsection (4), as drafted, provides that there should be no lateral deviation in the line of the tramways which would leave less space than 9 ft. 6 ins. between the outer rail of the tramway and the outer edge of the footpath. The Amendment, in the event of any dispute between the tramway authority and the owners or occupiers, enables the Minister of Transport to give his consent to any further deviation.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am a little astonished at the right hon. Gentleman's observations in moving this Amendment. Surely, the users of the road are also interested if the space between the tram rail and the kerb is reduced to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. As I understand it, under the subsection as it will now be amended, the right hon. Gentleman cannot stop the tram rail being put right alongside the kerb unless
one-third of the owners or one-third of the occupiers of the premises abutting on the place where such less space shall intervene
by writing within three weeks express their objection. Would it not be much better for the right hon. Gentleman to state that that space should always be left unless he gave his consent to it being reduced. That would seem to me to be eminently desirable, not only in the interests of the owners and occupiers, but in the interests of all those driving vehicles along the road.
As I understand the subsection, his only right of objection comes when the owners or occupiers have first objected. I think that it is unfortunate that he should not have the right of saying that these tram lines shall not be deviated without his consent to restrict the passage for ordinary vehicles to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. The Amendment does not seem to provide for that at all. I had hoped that that was the intention.

Mr. Barnes: Yes; the Amendment is in line with the model Clauses that deal with this matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: That may well be so, but I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether this subsection, as amended, will enable him, without any protest being made by owners or occupiers, to say that not less than 9 ft. 6 ins. shall be allowed and the space shall not be reduced below 9 ft. 6 ins. without the Minister's consent. The subsection does not say that. The subsection limits the right hon. Gentleman's powers to occasions when owners or occupiers have made their protest within three weeks, and if less than one-third of the owners or less than one-third of the occupiers protest within three weeks, the right hon. Gentleman has no power to say, "You must not move your tram line nearer to the kerb than 9 ft. 6 ins."

Mr. Barnes: The Amendment is designed to give the Minister of Transport power to override those objections if necessary, if he considers the circumstances warrant it. In this case the special circumstances are the necessary alteration of the tramways to provide the facilities for the exhibition. The Amendment gives the Minister of Transport powers to override such objections.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not quite sure whether I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the effect of this Amendment, but that interruption does not answer the point I was putting to him. I have put it before, but I will try to put it more clearly, because he obviously has not followed it. Suppose there are no objections from owners or occupiers; suppose, none the less, that in the interests of traffic it is undesirable that there should be a deviation restricting the space to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. This Clause, even as amended, gives the right hon. Gentleman no power of saying: "You must not do that"—not in the interests of the owners and occupiers, but in the interests of those using the roads. I should have thought that he, as Minister of Transport, would have wanted power to say that. That is the point I am putting. It may be quite right—I would not say it was not—that he should have power, after careful consideration of the views of the owners and occupiers, to overrule their objections. But that is not the point I


raise on this Amendment. The point I raise is the important question: has the Minister power to overrule those who wish to restrict the space between the tram rail and the kerb to less than 9 ft. 6 ins.? I hope I have made it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will be able to answer that innocent little question.

Mr. Barnes: I understand that that power is clearly defined in the Clause as amended. However, I give the hon. and learned Member the undertaking that if there should be any further doubt—which I understand is cleared up by this Amendment—there will be an opportunity of rectifying the matter in another place. At the moment I feel that this is adequately provided for.

Mr. Bramall: I should like to reinforce what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), because it does seem that the right hon. Gentleman is giving himself powers only one way. With the Clause as amended there will be two qualifications of the powers of the authority. The first qualification is that they may not do something if the owners and occupiers object. Assuming that there is no objection, there seems to be no limitation at all to the powers of the authority. It appears that the qualification which the right hon. Gentleman is putting in here comes into force only if the second part of the subsection is operative; that is to say, if the owners and occupiers object.
But surely, as the Minister has said, there is another interested party: namely, the users of the road, whose interests are protected by the right hon. Gentleman. Yet there is no provision in the Clause, as it stands, for anyone representing the users of the road to object to this procedure. Unless somebody does object to the procedure this subsection is not operative, because the whole subsection depends, as it stands, on the second part, which in turn is dependent on an objection being lodged; and if no objection is lodged the subsection does not come into effect at all, and if the subsection does not come into effect the Minister has no ability to override the objection.
My right hon. Friend requires a weapon in each hand: in the interests of road users, he needs ability to override the

tramway authority if the tramway authority is doing something wrong; on the other hand, he needs ability to override the objectors if they are objecting frivolously or unnecessarily, or if he is convinced that the force of their objection is not as strong as the force of the tramway authority's desire to provide this service for the public. With the Amendment he provides himself with one weapon—the weapon to override the objection of the owners and occupiers. But nowhere in this subsection, even with the Amendment, does he provide himself with the other weapon he requires—the weapon to override the action of the tramway authority if they are doing something which does not hinder the owners and occupiers and evokes no, objection from them, but does provide a danger for the public, and should therefore call for his intervention on that ground. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to reconsider this matter.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I do not think the Minister even provides himself fully with a weapon for the first part, because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself pointed out, if there is an objection by less than one-third of those entitled to object; or if they put in their objection too late, then these powers do not come into operation as regards even the first part. I can well understand the intention of making this Amendment, but the Amendment does not secure what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. It would leave him powerless if less than one-third object, or if they object too late and it would certainly leave him powerless if there were no objection at all. I hope he will look at this again and reconsider the whole matter.

Mr. Barnes: What hon. Members are really proposing is that under this Bill I should now take powers that in previous legislation have not been conferred upon the Minister of Transport. As I have indicated, this Clause, as amended, follows the model Sections in previous legislation on tramway undertakings and works. I should hardly think that a Bill of this kind, which carries out limited works in connection with a specific undertaking—in this case an exhibition—should he used as the occasion for the Minister to enlarge his powers with regard to


general tramway undertakings. Apparently, this has not been considered necessary before. This Amendment appears to give me all I require for the specific exhibition purposes, and I do not see the need to suggest that I should use this occasion for equipping myself with unnecessary powers.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I really am astonished by the right hon. Gentleman's replies. First of all he says, in answer to me, that by this Amendment he has the very powers I am asking him if he has got. That is to say, he says, in the clearest possible terms: "Yes, I have got power to stop the deviation of the tramways so as to prevent the reduction of the space between the kerb and the tramway below 9 ft. 6 ins.—

Mr. Barnes: To override objections.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: No. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that, and if he looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find that he did not. He will find that he answered my question on this Amendment in the affirmative. He has just made another speech saying that he has not got the power and does not want to have it. Well, if we are to make any progress on this Committee stage the right hon. Gentleman ought to know, before speaking on his own Amendments, exactly what they do. His own answers seem to indicate a lamentable degree of ignorance.
He cannot shield behind model Sections. This Bill, as I understand it, provides under Clause 1 (1) that the new tramways described in Part III shall be laid. Then Subsection (3) provides that the works authorised—that includes the new tramways—
shall be made in the lines or situations and according to the levels shown on the deposited plans and sections.
Subsection (4), which is now under consideration, provides, in the light of this Amendment, that there shall be no deviation without the consent of the Minister if one-third of the owners or occupiers object within three weeks. But if there are no objections from the owners or occupiers it follows—and I think the right hon. Gentleman now agrees, to judge from his last answer—that those laying the new tramways can deviate to restrict the space to below 9 ft. 6 ins.

without the right hon. Gentleman having any power to say that, in the interests of traffic generally in London and in this neighbourhood, they should not do so. Do I really understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he does not wish to have that power for the particular purpose of seeing that traffic shall flow freely to this exhibition and shall not be restricted by the tramways suddenly turning in towards the kerb? Does he not want power of supervision over deviation from the prescribed lines as laid down by the plan?

Mr. Bramall: I apologise for returning to the point, but I do not think my right hon. Friend has quite covered it. He said that this is a power which has not been previously conferred on a Minister, and he asked why it should be necessary in this case. My point is that the matter being dealt with here is not an ordinary case. I imagine that tramway works are not common; indeed, the tramway system is being got rid of in London as fast as possible. It is not an every-day occurrence for work to be carried out in the centre of London when traffic is more than usually congested. In view of the fact that these tramway works will be exceptional, I think it is necessary for the Minister to have exceptional power. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would recognise the extreme danger of tramway lines being too near to the kerb. The congestion to traffic and pedestrians will be considerable. This is a matter which requires some supervision.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we not to have a further reply from the right hon. Gentleman? He has given some contradictory answers to the questions I have put, and we cannot let this Clause pass without being told something more. I should like to have his clear assurance that he will carefully consider the matter between now and Report stage. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the argument that has been advanced from both sides, but has endeavoured to shield himself behind a model Section which does not apply to the problem that has been raised.

Mr. Barnes: I differ. I consider that a good many of the difficulties submitted are purely imaginary and are not likely to arise in practice. If by any chance


there should be any substance in what has been said, which I do not for one moment admit, the matter can be considered at a later stage. For the moment, I do not see the purpose of endeavouring to amend legislation that has been found quite adequate for this purpose. I do not see the need of fresh powers for the Minister, powers that have not been necessary in the past; nor do I see that mere repetition of what has been said, necessarily strengthens the case put forward.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Repetition of the point has been necessary to get it home to the right hon. Gentleman. He showed quite clearly his lack of perception and it was only after the point had been put to him several times that he perceived it. His answer is entirely unsatisfactory. I have asked several times whether he has powers over deviation if the tramway people seek to close the space to less than 9 ft. 6 ins. from the kerb, and all the right hon. Gentleman has said is that this is a model Section. I do not think he knows what are his powers, and I suggest that next weekend—we all know how he spent last weekend—he spends some time considering what powers this Bill gives him.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman one further simple question before we pass from this Clause. Subsection (1) deals with particular works. To what extent will payment for the specified works be made out of the Exchequer?

Mr. Barnes: This is really a matter that is dealt with in the Financial Resolution. We estimate that the footbridges will cost approximately £130,000. The Hungerford foot-bridge extension is for the purpose of protecting the right of way. There will also be railway works in connection with Waterloo and Charing Cross stations, some of which will be of permanent value to the British Transport Commission, and some of which are works which would probably not have been undertaken except for the purposes of this Exhibition. Discussions are proceding with the Transport Commission to determine the proportion of the costs

that will be borne by the Ministry of Transport and the British Transport Commission. A proportion of the costs also to be borne by the Transport Commission arise out of certain of the specified tramway works. Altogether, we anticipate that a sum of £654,000 will be necessary for the works mentioned in this subsection. As I indicated on Second Reading, it is difficult to estimate at the moment the works that will prove to be of permanent value, but discussions will take place between now and when the works are carried out to determine the proportion to be carried by the Ministry of Transport, the Exchequer and the bodies undertaking this work.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(USE AND ACQUISITION OF LANDS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about subsection (3), which gives the London County Council power to
enter upon, take and use or appropriate, for the purpose of providing substituted sites or facilities for persons displaced from the exhibition site and persons displaced from other land in connection with the exhibition traffic arrangements.
It further provides that the London County Council may
provide such buildings and facilities, whether permanent or not, as they think desirable on any lands taken under this subsection.
I am not familiar with the lands it is proposed to take for this purpose. It may be that they are lands on which there are no buildings at the present time, lands which are not occupied by dwelling houses or shops. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt will be able to tell me; but if they are, what provision is being made for re-housing those people who are moved out? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that the acquisition of this land in Lambeth for this purpose will not involve the dispossession of a single person? If it be the case that it is open land which is being taken, I am a little alarmed by his suggestion that on that land permanent buildings should be erected, because that would seem to imply that, as


one of the consequences of this Exhibition, the open spaces of London will be further and permanently reduced.
5.30 p.m.
Therefore, I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer those two questions, one of which really follows upon the other—if there is to be displacement of people from Lambeth what steps are being taken to look after them; and, secondly, if all that is being taken from Lambeth is some of the borough's open spaces, why is the provision here for the erection of permanent houses? I can well understand that permanent houses will be erected if the land taken is really bombed sites, but the right hon. Gentleman ought to give us an explanation of the matter.

Mr. Barnes: I am not quite clear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind when he talks about using the open spaces in Lambeth. If he means recreation grounds or things of that character, those are not involved in providing these facilities. As I understand it—and I am not competent to speak with any authority with regard to the affairs of the London County Council—the London County Council has accepted the view that adequate land facilities are available quite close to the vicinity of the area from which these people will be displaced, and that it will provide facilities for those who keep shops and business premises quite close to the structures that will be affected by the Exhibition arrangements.
With regard to householders, I understand that the London County Council intend to deal with them in their general housing proposals. They will carry out developments for two classes. There will be those with business interests who will be provided with facilities on land that is available quite close to where they will be displaced. Housing accommodation for the second class will be dealt with in the general housing facilities and developments that the London County Council will carry through. I am certainly not in a position to deal in any detailed way with the general obligations of the London County Council under this provision, which, after all, is merely giving them the power and authority to carry out such works.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Without going into the question of whether the right hon. Gentleman has fully dealt with the point put forward by my hon. and learned Friend, this subsection, if I read it aright, goes very much beyond the scope of the Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to what extent is it expected that people will have to have alternative accommodation provided by the London County Council, because the purpose of the Bill, reading the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, is to deal with facilities for those moved, but this subsection (3) enables the London County Council to provide substitute facilities for persons displaced from the Exhibition site and not only that, but those displaced through road improvements, parking spaces, or whatever it might be. It seems that this subsection deals with a rather more narrow aspect of this case, as it gives power to the London County Council to move people from the Exhibition site and find alternative accommodation for them. If that is so, it may be an extensive matter, and the right hon. Gentleman should see whether it is going to be a large-scale movement, or a precautionary measure, for one or two people who are going to move.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am singularly unsuccessful today in making my points clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I was not raising the question of what happens to people who are moved from the Exhibition to Lambeth, because on Second Reading the Leader of the House dealt fully with that subject, but I was coming back to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) who spoke about the land which is being taken over in Lambeth. That land is referred to in this subsection as follows:
… all or any of the lands situate in the borough of Lambeth which are delineated and numbered 60 to 75 (inclusive) on the deposited plans and are described in the deposited book of reference. …
I am afraid I have not seen the deposited plans or the book of reference. What I was asking the right hon. Gentleman is—are there any people living on the land so delineated and described at the present time, because if there are, quite obviously they are going to be moved out to make room for the people who are to move into


the Exhibition. If they are going to he moved out, what steps are being taken to look after them? That is the question I asked the right hon. Gentleman. If they are being moved out, where do we find any statutory provision for making provision for their moving to other shops and accommodation? I hope I have made clear to the right hon. Gentleman the point which I raised on the first occasion.

Mr. Barnes: I should hardly think the L.C.C. would start a general post on this matter.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It does not say they are going to do so. The right hon. Gentleman may speculate as much as he likes about what the L.C.C. will do, but surely he should know and I am asking him to tell the Committee. If these people are not going to be moved from lands in Lambeth, it follows they are bombed spaces. If they are bombed sites, I can understand the provision of permanent buildings, but if they are open spaces I am rather alarmed about the provision. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer that simple question.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: It may be that I can help the Committee at this stage, although I do not speak with any authority on behalf of the London County Council or the Lambeth Borough Council, the two local authorities directly concerned. In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson), who happens to be Chairman of the Housing Committee of the L.C.C., I think I am right in saying that there is close co-operation between the two local authorities concerned to ensure that the people who are displaced—and there will be a number of people displaced—will be provided with suitable alternative accommodation. Those who will be displaced because of the needs of the Exhibition include a number of shopkeepers, if my recollection is correct, in or near York Road, which runs by the Exhibition site. It may be in connection with the transport arrangements and the provision of circuses for the easier movement of traffic that other persons will have to be displaced.
I think I am right in saying that the London County Council have considered this matter very carefully. There have

been deputations to the L.C.C. from the persons directly affected, through my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply, who represents that constituency. I think I can give my assurance, for what it is worth, that the position of these people is being most carefully safeguarded and that the London County Council is well aware of the difficulties, the hardship and the inconvenience to which a very small number of people will be subjected in the interests of the Exhibition. With a view to co-operating with the Government in their plans for the Exhibition, every possible step is, I know, being taken by the London County Council to see that no individual is unduly affected in such a way as to hurt him in his business or so far as his business is concerned, or with regard to his living accommodation.

Mr. O. Poole: Would the hon. and gallant Member give us an indication of the sort of scope of this movement? When he says "a number of people" is he speaking in hundreds or in tens?

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: So far as I recollect, the number does not reach hundreds. It is a matter of tens. so far as my memory goes.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Could the Minister answer the question that I put to him just now?

Mr. Barnes: I think I can give an assurance on that point. This Clause does not mean the destruction of existing property or the movement of people out of existing property for the purpose of rehousing shopkeepers or business people who will be displaced. In the main it concerns open spaces, bombed sites and sites of that description. I am primarily responsible, of course, for the traffic arrangements, but I understand, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has indicated, that the London County Council and the Lambeth Borough Council have accepted full responsibility in these matters. So far as I know, no difficulties have arisen. I take it that everything is proceeding according to their undertaking. I think I can give that general assurance, without being too definite on details, that these people will be rehoused on bombed sites and open spaces. There will be no further interference caused in the process.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I should like to say, "Thank you" to the right hon. Gentleman for answering the question.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(STOPPING UP OF STREETS, ETC.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 6, line 38, at the end, to add:
(9) The powers conferred by Section fifty-two of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and Section twenty-two of the City of London Police Act, 1839, on the commissioners of the metropolitan police and the City police to make regulations for routes to be observed and for preventing obstruction shall be exercisable as respects any part of the period for which the exhibition is open, and not only as respects times of public processions, public rejoicings or illuminations.
This Amendment will make a new subsection (9). I understand that the Home Office now considers that the last sentence of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper, in the following terms, is not necessary:
and so much of the said Section twenty-two as requires the consent of the court of mayor and aldermen to the exercise of the powers thereby conferred shall not apply as respects that period.
It concerns the City of London Corporation. Therefore, the Amendment which I am moving will end with the words "or illuminations." I understand that the Home Office and the Metropolitan and City of London Commissioners of Police have doubts whether their powers will enable them to regulate traffic for the length of the period for which the Exhibition will run. Apparently the powers conferred by the Metropolitan Police Act and the London Police Act, 1839, deal largely with processions and illuminations, and with regulation of crowds and population in exceptional circumstances for limited periods. The Exhibition will run for quite a period. We are in some doubt whether the Acts of 1839 give sufficient powers. The new Subsection is moved at the request of those authorities to place the matter beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CAR PARKS.)

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 7, line 11, to leave out from the second "it" to "the," in line 12, and to insert:
and for the purposes of Section one hundred and forty-seven of the London Government Act, 1939, in its application to bye-laws under this Subsection the confirming authority shall be.
Section 147 of the London Government Act, 1939, sets out the procedure to be followed in the making of by-laws by local authorities in the London government area. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the procedure is followed in respect of any bylaw issued under the powers conferred by the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to answer the question I put to him just now. I have one further question to which, I hope, he will again be able to give me a satisfactory answer. I should be grateful if he will explain what precisely is the effect of paragraph (c) of subsection (8). The drafting of the subsection seems to be complicated. It brings in Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I am not quite clear how that is expected or intended to work. I should be grateful, if I have made the point clear to the right hon. Gentleman, if he would explain how that paragraph is to operate.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend also say what further inquiries have been made since the Second Reading Debate on the Bill about the possibility of alternative parking places to those suggested in the Clause, namely, Clapham Common and Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park? Both of them are open spaces and it would be a pity to encroach upon them to any greater extent than might be necessary. I know that my right hon. Friend does not want to encroach upon those open spaces more than is absolutely essential. There might be alternative cleared sites nearer the Exhibition area which might be used. Perhaps my right hon. Friend would be


able to say whether he has made any further inquiries which hold out the possibility that it might not be necessary to use the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, or that it may be possible to cut down the area that he proposes to use on the Clapham Common site.

Mr. Barnes: With regard to the Geraldine Mary Harmsworth Park, I understand that negotiations are proceeding with Lord Rothermere and I have had no further information as to those discussions since I made my statement on Second Reading. I indicated then that we were not anxious to use any of that space if it could possibly be avoided but that at this stage we are merely taking powers in a precautionary sense. I can only give a further assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that if it is at all possible to avoid the use of that very limited and valuable open space, it will be done.
The use of Clapham Common is not considered to represent any encroachment on public amenities. The parts which it is proposed to use as car parks or coach parks are now huge dumps of debris and I rather doubt whether those dumps would have been removed for a very considerable time had not a need of this character arisen. It is quite true that from the point of view of the convenience of those travelling by coach there is a lot to be said against putting them down in an area like Clapham Common; but, on the other hand, it is impossible for us to handle the traffic arrangements by allowing coaches to deliver their passengers either in or near the Exhibition. As to our survey of bombed sites and open places, it looks as though we shall want all the available sites that we can obtain within a reasonable distance of the Exhibition for private cars. Therefore, the need to avail ourselves of these eight acres or thereabouts of land on Clapham Common for this purpose appears to me to be as strong as ever, but it will undoubtedly have the effect of removing the debris from those acres and in the long run that may prove to be an advantage. There we have also the advantage of two tube stations with direct delivery to the Exhibition site. I must add that between now and the Exhibition, it will be necessary for us to obtain other spaces, probably on

the north side of London, for a similar purpose.
In reply to the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), I am informed that Subsection (8, c) gives power to re-assess the award of the development charge if a man's land is taken away from him for the Exhibition. I am afraid that that is not too clear a legal definition but I do not pretend to be in a position to give an adequate explanation on that point.

Mr. O. Poole: Does this apply only to car parks or to all land taken over for the Exhibition?

Mr. Barnes: In this case, to car parks only.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(MODIFICATION OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1947.)

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, in page 9, line 34, to leave out from "being," to "put" in line 35.
This deals with the problem of the development charge in connection with the Exhibition site under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. Subsections (1) and (2) as printed refer to "use" only. The Amendment seeks to delete the words:
Appropriated or leased by them for the purpose of being.
I understand that this is at the request of the London County Council and that it will give them the protection they need against a development charge in the event of their permitting this land to be used for Exhibition purposes.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(FOR PROTECTION OF PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY.)

(1) In this Section unless the context otherwise requires—

(a)"the port authority" means the Port of London Authority;


(b) "the river" means the part of the River Thames which is within the jurisdiction of the port authority and includes the bed, banks and shores thereof;
(c) "the river works" means such part of any of the works authorised by Section one of this Act as is situate in, on, over or under the river.

(2) The river works shall be executed in accordance with plans and sections approved by the port authority before the works are commenced, and the under side of each navigation opening of the river footbridge shall be not less than twenty-five feet above the level of Trinity high water.

(3) The following provisions shall have effect with respect to the construction of the river works, that is to say—

(a) the traffic of the river shall not be interfered with more than may be reasonably necessary;
(b) such floating booms, if any, as the port authority may think necessary to secure safety of navigation shall be provided by the Council in accordance with plans approved by the port authority;
(c) all piles and other works not forming part of any of the river works but placed in, on, over or under the river for the purpose of its construction shall be drawn from the river by the Council on or before the completion of the work or, if it is not reasonably practicable immediately to draw them from the river, shall be cut off at such level below the level of the bed of the river as the port authority may approve;
(d) the Council shall not, without the previous consent of the port authority—

(i) take any gravel, soil or other material from the river, except so far as may be necessary in the construction of the river works; or
(ii) dredge any part of the river.

(4) Without prejudice to Section six of this Act, the Council shall within the period allowed under that Section completely remove any of the river works which is temporary, and any piles or other works placed in, on, over or under the river for the purpose of constructing or removing it (including those cut off under the last foregoing Subsection); and paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of the last foregoing Subsection shall apply in relation to the removal of the river works as they apply in relation to their construction.

(5) If the Council fail to remove any of the river works or to remove, draw or cut off any piles or other works as required by either of the last two foregoing Subsections after receipt of a request in that behalf from the port authority, the port authority may do so and may dispose of any materials obtained by so doing.

(6) Owners and masters of vessels shall not be liable to make good damage caused to any of the river works, or to any piles or other works placed in, on, over, or under the river for the purpose of its construction or removal, except damage arising from the wilful act of default of such owners or masters or their servants or agents.

(7) The Council shall, during the construction of the river works, and during the subsequent repair and removal thereof, hang out and exhibit on or near to the works, and on the works when completed, every night from sunset to sunrise such lights (to be kept burning by and at the expense of the Council), and during every day such marks, as the port authority may think necessary to secure the safety of navigation, and the lights and marks shall be so placed and used as the port authority may from time to time approve; and for any contravention of this Subsection the Council shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(8) Before applying to the Minister of Transport for him to approve a determination that a landing stage authorised by Section one of this Act shall not be temporary, the Council shall give the port authority fourteen days' notice of their intention so to do, and before approving any such determination the Minister shall consider any representations made to him by the port authority.

(9) The Council shall on demand pay to the port authority—

(a) any expenses reasonably incurred by the port authority in carrying out a survey of the river in the vicinity of the site of any of the river works for the purpose of ensuring that Subsection (4) of this Section has been complied with;
(b) any expenses reasonably incurred by the port authority in the exercise of the powers conferred on the port authority by Subsection (5) of this Section less the value of any materials obtained by the port authority in the exercise of the powers;
(c) any expenses reasonably incurred by the port authority in altering, removing, repositioning and subsequently replacing any moorings and mooring chains, in such manner as the port authority think necessary or desirable by reason of the construction of the river works, and in any work of dredging which the port authority think necessary or desirable as aforesaid or otherwise in removing any silt which may have accumulated in the vicinity of any of the river works as the result of and during the existence thereof.

(10) Nothing in this Act shall authorise the Council to discharge or allow to escape either directly or indirectly into the river or its tributaries any offensive or injurious matter in suspension or otherwise, or shall affect the operation of Sections two hundred and twenty-six to two hundred and thirty-nine of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920 (which relate to pollution).

(11) The port authority shall not unreasonably withhold any approval or consent required under this Section, and where any plan, Section or proposal requiring such approval or consent is delivered to the port authority the approval or consent shall be deemed to have been given if the port authority do not within one month of the delivery express their disapproval.

(12) Subject to the last foregoing Subsection, any approval, disapproval, consent or request of the port authority under this Section shall be in writing under the hand of their secretary or other authorised officer.

(13) Any difference arising between the Council and the port authority under this Section shall be referred to and settled by a single arbitrator to he appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.—[Mr. Barnes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Barnes: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a protective Clause for the Port of London Authority. I understand it is an agreed Clause between the Port of London Authority and the London County Council, and covers all their usual arrangements in connection with the river and the Port of London area.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COLONIAL NAVAL DEFENCE BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — New Clause.—(EXEMPTION FOR COLONIES IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.)

The provisions of this Act shall not extend to Colonies in the Western Hemisphere.—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, "That the Clause he read a Second time."
On Second Reading we asked the Colonial Secretary for some detailed explanations of the purpose of the Bill. His explanations were not satisfactory, especially in regard to the general question of naval strategy. I have put down this new Clause because I do not think we are justified in suggesting to any-Colony in the Western Hemisphere that they shall undertake any new financial burdens under the provisions of the Bill.
I know the Admiralty take the view that we need to conduct naval strategy somewhere in the Western Hemisphere, and I know that in recent months the British Fleet has conducted an expensive

naval exercise in that part of the world, but some of us want to know why? Why is it necessary to have a Bill of this kind to make further provisions for the naval defence of overseas territories, and especially in the Western Hemisphere?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies suggested in defence of this Bill on Second Reading, that it was necessary to safeguard us against pirates. I am certainly not in favour of piracy; I regard it as a rather romantic but undesirable form of private enterprise. As far as our Colonies in the West Indies are concerned, I suggest that there is absolutely no danger from pirates, and that the minds of those at the Admiralty and of the Colonial Secretary have not moved forward from the time when Sir Richard Grenville lay "at Flores in the Azores" and conducted his great epic battle.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain to us what earthly purpose there is in the year 1949, for empowering the legislatures of the Colonies in the West Indies to make further provision for naval defence? After all, we have moved on, even since the Act of 1931, and it is quite obvious today that the security of the Colonies in the Western Hemisphere can be safeguarded adequately by the navy of the United States of America. In the Press yesterday we were told that today there will be extensive naval operations carried out near the West Indies by a powerful Fleet composed of aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers and all other kinds of naval craft. In face of that, I suggest that the time has come when we should he realistic and recognise that, as far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned, the security of those Islands, if threatened, can be safely left to the United States of America.
As far as we are concerned, what potential enemy is threatening the West Indies? Surely it cannot be argued that Russia is contemplating an attack on these Islands from a base in the West Indies? That would seem to be rather the strategy of the gentleman in Chester-ton's poem who wished to make his way to Birmingham by way of Beachy Head. I suggest that there is no threat to the security of the West Indies from the Navy of the U.S.S.R., and that in making this provision we are living in past centuries with absolutely no realisation of the strategy of today.
I can quite imagine a citizen of the United States of America reading this Bill and asking, "Why does Great Britain want to be bothered about the strategy and safety of the West Indies at this time of day? Cannot they use the money from Marshall Aid to far greater advantage than building up a Navy where it is not required?" So whatever may be said in favour of other parts of the Bill. I fail to see why we should be making provisions in the year 1949 to raise a new naval force in the West Indies. We should recognise that history has now moved forward, that we are not living in the time of Drake or the Spanish Armada or of any possible war with Spain or anybody else, and that we can safely leave the Western Hemisphere out of this Bill.
Under its terms, if there is no actual obligation upon the legislatures of the West Indies, encouragement is certainly given to them to spend certain sums from their Budgets in organising naval defence. Are we in this Committee satisfied that conditions in the West Indies are so good that we can encourage these legislatures to divert finance from the necessary expenditure on education, on social reform, on housing, and on all the other items which will necessarily come up in those budgets? I listened carefully to the recent Adjournment Debate when the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) gave an interesting account of the West Indies. He was supported by the hon. and learned Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan). The hon. Member for Maldon said:
These Jamaican people are living in shacks actually made of old cardboard and bits of old tin just strung together anyhow, in the most insanitary surroundings. It is a monstrous anomaly, too, at a time when, in public hospitals, patients had to be put two or three in a bed, because even that was better than leaving them in the filthy hovels in which they lived."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 2026.]
In order to stress his point about the West Indies, the hon. Member for Maldon argued that housing conditions were even worse there than in Scotland. I suggest that legislation which encourages the West Indies legislatures to divert money away from the expenditure necessary to improve social conditions is quite unnecessary. If the West Indies have money to throw away, let us remember

the facts given to us by the hon. Member for Maldon that 27 per cent. of the people live in a state of illiteracy.
The Under-Secretary of State suggested that this would not incur any great measure of expenditure. His idea was that we should put at the disposal of these Colonies old ships and old officers. [Laughter.] Oh, yes—hon. Members may laugh—he said we could not afford to give them these out of our present naval Forces, but that we should put at their disposal elderly veterans of the Naval Reserve.

Mr. Austin: For training only.

Mr. Hughes: I would point out to the Under-Secretary that he should pay far greater attention to the problem of manpower of the nation, and that he should remember that we have not the manpower to spare. I would advise him to read the latest statement from the Admiralty issued yesterday showing that the recruiting for the Naval Reserve is going too slowly. Can we afford to supply officers and men of the Naval Reserve to legislatures contemplating naval preparation in the West Indies? The Admiralty have said that, so far, only about 8 per cent. of the men required immediately have volunteered and that this is no more than 1 per cent. of the figure aimed at.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member has been only just in Order the whole time. Now he is going a little too far. He must relate all his remarks to the position in the West Indies or in the Colonies in the Western Hemisphere.

Mr. Hughes: I am obliged to you for your guidance, Mr. Bowles, and for your tolerance in letting me develop my argument.
I will sum up. First, as far as the defence of the Western Hemisphere is concerned—if it needs any such defence—it can be left safely to the United States of America. Second, there is no demand in these Colonies that expenditure on naval preparation should have priority. Third, we are not able to provide this Colony with the men, material and money suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Willis: I support the Motion of my hon. Friend the


Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) for the reason that we in this Committee deserve a better explanation of the reasons for the Bill than was given during the Second Reading. The only real reason then given to us was, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Bill was necessary in order to put down piracy.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the new Clause and not extend his remarks to the Bill in general.

Mr. Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Bowles, but I am just coming to the Clause.
Two facts must be borne in mind regarding the colonies in the Western Hemisphere. One is that America is not our enemy and the other is that America now has a two-ocean navy. In the light of these facts, what service can be given by naval forces in the West Indies or Western Hemisphere? We are entitled to an answer about this. They can be of service only if they form part of larger forces. There appears to be no necessity for these armed forces for the purpose previously explained to us—the suppression of piracy—because that can be effected by the United States. Are these forces required to provide us with reserves for our own naval forces? If so, whilst I think it undesirable that we should ask Western Hemisphere colonies to pay for this purpose, then we must have regard to the conditions in those colonies. An enormous amount of work requires to be done in them and I should have thought, without wishing to be out of Order, that the available money would be much better spent on providing social services, education, hospitals, water supplies and all the rest rather than on providing the major Powers of the world with naval reserves.

Mr. Skinnard: I oppose the new Clause, because this is a permissive Bill which confers certain powers upon colonies which are gradually getting nearer and nearer to the ideal of self-government. The legislatures which have attained very nearly to self-government in the British West Indies would feel it invidious if they were especially excluded from the provisions of the Bill.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) made playful reference to the remote possibility of piracy in the region of the West Indies, but the West Indies and Caribbean as a

whole is not exactly the most settled area of the globe. Apart from piracy there is a danger of the landing on the mainland of armed forces known as filibusters. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire is a very fine example—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman explain where these filibusters are coming from? Is it from the United States?

Mr. Skinnard: I am obliged to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who is the finest example we have in the House of Commons of a Scottish filibuster. The chief objection of our West Indian colonies to being excluded from the Bill is that it would mean their being delivered entirely to the protection of the United States of America.

Mr. Willis: And of ourselves.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Skinnard: It has been said that the finest example of filibustering so far in recent history in the Caribbean has been the exploits of the United States Marines aided by United States naval vessels.

Mr. Willis: Surely, we have a fleet in the West Indies which is quite capable of dealing with all these things?

Mr. Skinnard: That may be so, but it does not alter the main point that the British West Indies are very loyal to the British connection. When I was in the West Indies I was assured that there was a rooted objection to further American economic or imperialistic penetration in our area of the Caribbean.

Dr. Morgan: Would my right hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard)—I am sorry, I should say my hon. Friend—would he tell me how many West Indians of any race or colour are employed by the British Navy in the North Atlantic Fleet?

Mr. Skinnard: That is a question which should be more properly addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) for realising the shape of things to come and giving me an honorific to which at present I am not entitled. I think it is a quid pro quo for his elevation by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire from the medical to the legal profession.
We must not allow our West Indian Colonies to feel that we are prepared to hand them over to the protection of a Power which they feel, rightly or wrongly, they have had occasion to distrust. Furthermore, we can leave it to the good sense of the legislatures whether they wish to take advantage of the powers permitted to them under the Bill. Rather than bring about a situation which the new Clause, if agreed to, would create, we should let the West Indian legislators decide for themselves. There has been too much imposition from here of grandmotherly legislation in the past, as the hon. Member for Rochdale knows very well, and it has not been very successful.
Here is a Bill which enables a colonial legislature or groups of legislatures, if they so desire, to form a small nucleus of naval forces; nothing more. It is not our task to make exceptions here and there, but rather to leave it to the colonial legislatures themselves to judge from local conditions whether there is need or not. Presently there will be a great development, I hope, of fisheries in the Caribbean area. That is part of the development plans. Fisheries need protection nowhere more than in the Caribbean area, where respect for maritime law has not always been conspicuous. We can safely leave it to the legislatures of the British West Indian islands and mainland Colonies to take the Bill and to act upon it or not as they feel fit within their area.

Mr. Harold Davies: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) because, irrespective of what anyone may say, this gives the Committee a chance of raising the issue of the relationship between coloured members of the Commonwealth and the British Navy. This is a simple Bill—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must not talk about the Bill; he must talk about the Clause.

Mr. Davies: I had to mention the Bill because I wanted to mention the Clause. The purpose of the proposed new Clause is to exclude the Western Hemisphere from the Bill, for reasons which have been well stated. If the purpose is to extend defence against piracy, a few aero-planes in the Caribbean Sea could do

that. Before we think in terms of naval defence there, we ought to increase the Mercantile Marine in that area. I hope I am in Order here. This money which would be spent on extending naval defence there could be spent on that, because the greatest defence of any country in the 20th century is to have efficient material equipment, piston rods and spanners, rather than masses of troops and fleets which cannot be supplied because the West Indies standard of equipment could not meet the problem if there were a major war.
I welcome the opportunity of supporting the proposed new Clause, because if we are to integrate Colonial naval services with British naval services, there must be an opportunity for coloured members of the Commonwealth, equally with white people, to reach the greatest heights in the British Navy. That is a point worth bringing forward and for that reason I welcome the proposed Clause. I beg the Minister to see that every opportunity is given to coloured members of the Commonwealth to have equal opportunity with white people, of climbing the ladder of promotion in the British Navy.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must realise that this is a negative Clause which says that the Bill shall not apply to certain parts of the Western Hemisphere. Therefore, he is completely out of Order in referring to other parts of the Empire not mentioned in the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Davies: I beg your pardon, Mr. Bowles, but I have made my remarks, and I thought they were in Order.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I am sorry you have given that Ruling, Mr. Bowles, although I was fully expecting you to rule in those terms. Because those who follow do not take up this point and subscribe to it, I hope that we shall not be charged with not having the same desirable objectives as those who have preceded us. I am always intrigued by lessons in strategy from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It is quite obvious he has very carefully thought out the next war and exactly how the Powers will divide themselves and who will be fighting whom. I congratulate him on that. We know his very great interest in Service matters


in this House and the very great authority he is on all these points. He has not only decided what the line-up will be, but what surprises me—

Dr. Morgan: Is this in Order?

Mr. Poole: I am replying to what has been said and I am sure that the Deputy-Chairman would rule me out of Order if this were not in Order.

Dr. Morgan: I am asking the Chair.

Mr. Poole: Get up on your feet, then. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire has also got to a position, in which we are very glad to find him, in which he has accepted the United States as the perfectly logical ally to the British Empire. We are very pleased to find that he has come so far along the road, because we always felt he was travelling a very different road—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire was in Order when he suggested that defence in this part of the world could be left to the United States of America, but I do not think the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) is in Order in suggesting a literal alliance between ourselves and America.

Mr. Poole: That is exactly the point I am making. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire says there is no need to worry about Colonial defence in the West Indies which could be rightly, properly and safely left to the United States of America. I cannot imagine the United States of America defending the West Indies, unless they were our allies. The argument that the conditions of the West Indies are so appallingly bad—and I subscribe to his description of the West Indies—that any money spent there could be far better spent on houses, hospitals and things like that, is true, but it is not only true of the West Indies but of Great Britain. I should expect, if he were sincere in that argument, that he would be voting against the Defence Estimates all through because the £70 odd million could be better spent—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is going too wide and I must ask him to keep to the proposed new Clause.

Mr. Poole: It is very difficult, with all due respect, when we get a highly con-
troversial speech, making these self-same points, by the hon. Member who moved the new Clause and are not allowed to reply to him. However, I will respect your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, and leave the point inadequately made at the stage at which I had arrived. What we are entitled to ask the hon. Member is for what reason he wants the Western Hemisphere excluded? Is it because there will be no need to defend those Colonies because there will be no attack? Is that the case? Or is it because he says America could do it very much better, or because the Colonies cannot afford it? On what foot is he standing?
My line is that these people are part of the British Commonwealth and are entitled to be defended, either by their own resources or by the resources of the British Navy. To me it is a shocking thing that there are some people who will stand up in this Committee and suggest that a primitive Colony shall be left to the tender mercies of any influence which might be brought to bear, and that we shall not place at their disposal the full resources of which we are capable. I was halfway across the Atlantic in 1942 in a small 3,000 ton ship when the news came through that Singapore had fallen. There were only half a dozen passengers on that ship, and I remember what a shock it was to find that our people in Singapore had been almost defenceless, overwhelmed and subjected subsequently to the awful treatment which befell them.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When the hon. Member says that Singapore was left defenceless, is he aware that we spent about £40 million on its defences?

Mr. Poole: I am well aware of what we spent, but the spending of money does not necessarily lead to defence of a Colony. I do not know what argument the hon. Member is trying to make. I am not prepared to leave any Colonial people defenceless in any part of the world, whether in the Western Hemisphere or the Eastern Hemisphere, or to delegate to some foreign Power responsibility for the defence of Colonial people. I am amazed that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who has been so bitterly opposed to any association with America, should suggest now that they could be charged with the responsibility of defending the Commonwealth.

Dr. Morgan: I hope I shall not add to the heat of the discussion. I wish to support the proposed new Clause. The last speech was a most peculiar speech. The West Indian people have no desire to be left defenceless. They are associated with Great Britain and can be defended by Great Britain. Perhaps the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole) does not know that there is such a thing as a North Atlantic Fleet based on Canadian ports and that care can be taken of the West Indies from those ports—

Mr. Poole: Which ports?

Dr. Morgan: Halifax.

Mr. Poole: How many days journey away?

Dr. Morgan: Three days journey, four days in a fleet. I do not know why the hon. Member has suddenly evinced this great interest in the West Indies. The preliminaries for the inclusion of the West Indies in this Bill have not been observed. To my knowledge there has not yet been any boys from West Indian schools taken into the ships of the British Navy, the North Atlantic Fleet, and trained.
6.30 p.m.
Some years ago I put up a scheme to the Colonial Office for the peace-time training of boys at an educational naval training school, at which they would be taught elementary seamanship and something about naval matters, as well as general knowledge. The Colonial Secretary wrote in reply that it was a fine scheme but that he was engaged in so many other economic and welfare schemes that he would not undertake it. He indicated however that he would give his warm approval to the idea if it was taken up by any interested welfare body. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. C. Poole), like the honourable filibuster from East Harrow, tells us what the West Indies should have. I first want the Colonial peoples to be put on an equal footing with the rest of the people throughout the Commonwealth. That partly consists of training them in British ships and teaching them the honour, discipline and the whole system of training of the British Navy.

Mr. C. Poole: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee where in this Bill or in this new Clause there is anything which prevents that taking place?

Dr. Morgan: My hon. Friend could not have heard my first observation that the conditions for the inclusion of the West Indies in this Bill for defence purposes have not been fulfilled. Certain conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, the West Indies themselves, or their Legislatures, are being given the power to come into the scheme, but they are not free Legislatures. They are Colonial Legislatures with nominated members, for whom His Majesty's Government are responsible, in the majority. The elected members are not in a majority. That is not free government. Only Jamaica has anything of that kind, and I say that the preliminaries for the inclusion of the defence of the West Indies in this Bill have not been fulfilled. On that account, I agree with and approve of, not for the first time, the viewpoint of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) as set out in this new Clause.
I approve of the Clause for three reasons. The first is the remoteness of the West Indies from any possibility of attack. The second is the fact that we have ships based on Canada, and in addition to that a friendly Power, the United States, which now has bases in our West Indian Islands, is on the spot to defend them. My third reason is, as I have already said, that no steps have really been taken to give the West Indies an opportunity to have even coastal defence. Even now, in the islands of Antigua and St. Kitts, we have no naval or other defence to protect the islands from smuggling from the neighbouring French islands. Why not let them undertake that now? It could be done by giving the Legislatures the power which they have not yet been given to have their own ships. That is not being done by this Bill.
The way to proceed is by giving them a free Constitution and giving them powers to act themselves. They do not want us to proceed in this way. They want us to do so in the way which seems proper to them—by giving them a free federated self-governing West Indies and the necessary power.

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that the hon. Member knew that I was about to tell him that he was getting out of Order. He must not proceed further along those lines.

Dr. Morgan: I willingly obey your Ruling, Mr. Bowles. I approve of this new Clause. I think it is appropriate to have such a Clause to exclude the West Indies and the Western Hemisphere from the scope of this Bill because the preliminary conditions for including them in the Bill have not been fulfilled.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I hope that despite the fact that this new Clause has met with support from no fewer than three supporters of the Government it will nevertheless not be accepted by the Government. Having heard the whole of this Debate, I can conceive of no other reason for this new Clause than that it is consistent with the policy which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has so often expressed, of shelving our responsibilities, liquidating the British Empire and reducing this country to a state of impotence at the earliest possible moment. As I say, I trust that the Government will not accept this new Clause. We have taken a considerable time in discussing it, and the discussion has covered a wide field. I do not propose to answer the points which have been put forward by its supporters except to say that I believe that if it were accepted it would be contrary not only to the true interests of the Colonies in the Western Hemisphere but also contrary to the interests of the Western countries of the world.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I ask the Committee to reject this new Clause. I see no merit whatever in it. I can only imagine that my hon. Friend has not understood the purpose of the Bill because otherwise I think that even he would never have moved the Clause. I am glad to find strong if belated interest in the defence of the West Indies. I hope that when we discuss other matters which it would be out of Order to discuss now, we shall find the same interest being shown. The purpose of this Bill is not to force any Colony or group of Colonies to do anything. It merely gives certain groups of Colonies the power to set up naval forces if they so desire. It is left to their Legislatures to decide.
The idea that we in this country are dictating to the people of the West Indies and the Caribbeans whether they should have forces and if so, what forces they should be, is entirely erroneous.

Dr. Morgan: It is not the people. It is the Legislatures appointed by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The defence of the Commonwealth cannot be splintered in the way my hon. Friend suggests. In past wars through which this country has emerged victorious, the Colonies, including the remote parts, have hastened to send contingents to help us in the common struggle. To suggest that because there is no immediate enemy in the neighbourhood of a Colony, that Colony should not produce any forces is entirely against the desires of the people of the Colonies as a whole. They wish to take their part in the defence of the Commonwealth.
My hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) and Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) have suggested that it is desirable for us to train Colonial subjects in the Royal Navy. That is one of the matters which follow from this Bill.

Mr. Harold Davies: And without colour discrimination.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Exactly. When this Bill received its Second Reading I said that the Royal Navy had undertaken to train certain of these men, to have them over here to take part in courses in the Royal Navy, in other words, to bring them into the general comradeship of that fine Service.

Dr. Morgan: Why have the Government not done that before?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not think that the suggestion that we have not done it before is any argument for not doing it now. I am pointing out that we are now going to do it, and that we are doing what my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale suggests we ought to do.
I do not think that my hon. Friend's description of the measure of self-government now attained by the various Governments in the Caribbean and the West Indies will please those Colonies. I should have thought his suggestion as to the powers of Jamaica, Trinidad, Barbados and Bahamas, to give only a few, will be received with no welcome in those territories. In fact, they have


wide powers, and the suggestion that we in Whitehall dictate to the legislative councils is entirely wrong. Those legislative councils have wide powers of responsibility and they will consider these matters if they come before them in the light of the defence of the Commonwealth as a whole and their own Colonies in particular. I do not think there is any need to detain the Committee at length in this matter and I ask them to reject this proposed new Clause.

Question "That the Clause be read a Second time" put, and negatived.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Bramall: I wish to ask if my hon. Friend could enlighten me regarding one phrase which I do not understand in Clause 1 (3. a) where reference is made to a territory for the time being administered by the Government in a Dominion. Could my hon. Friend tell me what type of territory is there referred to?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I do not understand the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) will extend it a little further.

Mr. Bramall: Clause 1, (3, a)—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member has already addressed the House. He cannot speak again without leave of the House.

Mr. Braman: By leave of the House, may I say that Clause 1 (3, a) deals with two types of territories which are being brought within the scope of this Bill and which were not within the scope of the original Act of 1931. The first type of territory I understand. It is territories which are not British territories, but presumably British Protectorates. The second type I cannot understand, that is:
… a territory for the time being administered by His Majesty's Government in a Dominion within the meaning of the Statute of Westminster, 1931.
Thinking over the territories within the British Commonwealth I cannot think of any territory that meets that definition.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Such a territory would be similar to New Guinea Territory administered by the Dominion of Australia, for example. There may be other territories administered by the Government of a Dominion which may be colonial territories but do not come under the aegis of the Colonial Office here.

Mr. Bramall: Again with leave of the House may I—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has already spoken twice. He cannot speak again.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE REGULATIONS

Resolved:
That the Representation of the People Regulations, 1949, dated 8th February, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

Resolved:
That the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations, 1949, dated 18th February, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st February, be approved."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CHARGES FOR DUSTBINS) ORDER

6.45 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 25th January, 1949, entitled the Local Authorities (Charges for Dustbins) Order, 1949 (S.I., 1949, No. 120), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.
This order has been the subject of consideration by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, and has been reported by them to the House in the following terms:
Your Committee have considered the Local Authorities (Charges for Dustbins) Order, 1949 … a copy of which was presented on the 27th January, 1949, and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground that it appears to make an unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statutes under which it is made.


The order makes the following provision—I think the simplest way would be for me to read the explanatory note—
Under the Public Health Act, 1936 local authorities may make an annual charge not exceeding 2s. 6d. for each dustbin provided and maintained by them. Maximum charges of varying amounts are also prescribed for similar services under local Acts. To enable local authorities to meet the increased costs of this service the order prescribes a maximum charge of 5s. in all cases where the present maximum is less than that amount.
This order is made, or is purported to be made in pursuance of certain statutory powers. It commences:
The Minister of Health, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by paragraph (10 of Regulation 56 of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, as having effect by virtue of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945(a), … hereby orders as follows.… 
When one looks at Regulation 56 (1B) one finds this:
For any of the purposes specified in Subsection (1) of Section one of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, the competent authority may by order relax any obligation or limitation imposed, with respect to any public utility undertaking … by virtue of, any Act … determining the functions of the undertakers, and in particular may authorise the undertakers to make in connection with the carrying on of such undertaking, charges in excess of, or in addition to, those which they would otherwise be authorised to make. … 
It will be observed that the governing words are at the beginning:
For any of the purposes specified in Subsection (1) of Section one of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945.
The words in that Act upon which the Ministry rely for the validity of this order are considered in the memorandum which the Ministry submitted to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments at their request. Paragraph 1, as I have said, deals with this very vital question as to the particular purpose prescribed by the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, within which the Ministry claim that this order is made. The first paragraph of the memorandum is as follows:

"1. The first point upon which the Select Committee have asked the Department to submit an explanation is the question whether the Order falls within the scope of Section 1 (1) of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, …
2. It is the view of the Department that the purpose of the Order, which is inherent in that expressed in the Explanatory Note, is to enable Local Authorities to continue the service of the provision and maintenance of

dustbins under Section 75 (3) of the Public Health Act, 1946, without financial loss. This purpose appears to fall within that expressed in Section 1 (1) (a) of the Act of 1945 as 'the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating' services essential to the well-being of the community as 'to secure … their availability at fair prices'."

The question, therefore, is whether this order, in empowering local authorities to charge more than the 2s. 6d. per annum which is prescribed in the Public Health Act, 1936, comes within the purposes laid down by the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, and whether the contention of the Ministry is right that this order secures the availability of dustbins at fair prices. That is where I join issue with the Ministry. It is also where the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, to put the matter most modestly, had grave doubts about the validity of his order. In my submission, this order does nothing to secure the availability of dustbins. What it does, or what it claims to do, is to save local authorities from loss. That really is all that the Explanatory Memorandum claims, but when the Select Committee took note of this the Ministry of Health put forward a much more complicated argument. I cannot see how they can reasonably claim that this order does anything to secure the availability of dustbins either at fair prices or any other prices.
I am informed that there is no shortage of dustbins. I do not think that has been suggested. If this is a question of fair prices, if it is suggested that the existing market prices of dustbins are too high, then surely the Government should deal with the matter by means of price control, for which they have the most adequate and extensive powers. Again, it is not obligatory by this order, or by the Public Health Act, 1936, for local authorities to supply dustbins. It is purely optional. Under the Act of 1936, the local authority can require any owner or occupier to provide a dustbin for the premises. If the owner or occupier fails to do so, the local authority can provide a dustbin at the expense of the owner or occupier. It is purely an alternative option which the local authority has to provide dustbins on hire. Therefore, I cannot see that this order does anything to secure the availability of dustbins.
It may be a very desirable course to save local authorities from loss. It may


be that this order in its intention, in aiming to prevent local authorities from suffering any loss in providing these services, is well intentioned, though in my submission, however good is its intention, it is not within the powers under the Statute. For the purpose of my argument, I am prepared to assume that the order is reasonable, although I say that without prejudice to the argument which will be put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder), who will argue the question more on its merits.
If we assume for the purpose of argument that this order is desirable and that it is within the powers, why does the Ministry stop at local authorities? Local authorities are not the only people who provide dustbins. Many landlords of rent-controlled premises are obliged to provide dustbins and are precluded under the Rent Acts from charging any increase in rent in respect of that service, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of dustbins. Therefore, if it is reasonable to enable local authorities to charge more for dustbins, surely it would also be reasonable to make the same provision for private landlords of controlled premises. If the Ministry of Health are entitled by this order in effect to amend the Public Health Act, 1936, surely they have equal power by a similar order to amend the Rent Acts so as to enable landlords to charge more in respect of services provided by them—such as dustbins.
In my submission, assuming that this is a desirable proposal, it should be done by Bill and not by statutory order. The order is of a temporary nature because under the Supplies and Services Act it can only continue until 1950, unless the Act is extended by Resolution of the House. I imagine that the intention is that this provision should become permanent, because if we refer to paragraph 7 of the Memorandum by the Select Committee—and this is where the Ministry let the cat out of the bag—we find this:
A further point upon which the Select Committee have requested an explanation is the question why the object in view was not attained by an amendment by Act of Section 75 of the Public Health Act. 1936. As to this, the course suggested would have been taken by the Department had there been any

legislation in view in which the relevant amendment could be properly incorporated. No such opportunity presents itself at present, but it is intended that upon the first suitable occasion that course will be taken. In the meantime many Local Authorities are incurring increasing losses upon the maintenance of this service at an unfair price and, in order to remove that prohibition or deterrent from the continuance of a highly expedient practice, it was deemed necessary to have recourse to the powers specially contained in that behalf in the Defence Regulations.
I am aware that there has been great confusion as a result of the ambiguities in Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1936. There have been many cases in the courts and conflicting decisions have been given. In some cases it has been determined that the responsibility is upon the occupier, and in some cases the responsibility for providing dustbins has been put upon the owner. It is desirable that all that should be cleared up, but it can only be cleared up by a Bill. In view of the strictures which the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments have made in regard to this order, I hope that the Ministry will be prepared to revoke it and to introduce a Bill to deal with this involved and complicated problem. I submit that this order is not within the powers under the Statute.

6.59 p.m.

Captain John Crowder: I beg to second the Motion.
I am not clear whether this order has been made to enable local authorities to charge more to meet the increased cost of actually providing dustbins to householders, or whether the real object is to enable local authorities to make a charge for collection and disposal. Of course, this matter affects only those householders who take advantage of the scheme. It does not appear to me that a 100 per cent. increase is justified. We are all in favour of any scheme which will assist in maintaining the cleanliness of the country in general. There may be a case even for providing free dustbins in certain cases from the ratepayers' pockets.

It being Seven o'Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed.

Orders of the Day — BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. Bowles.]

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I have on the Order Paper, as you will observe, a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee, and I would seek your guidance whether the matters which I seek to raise on that Motion can be more appropriately discussed on Second Reading or after the Bill has been read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: I am really rather in the hands of the hon. Member. If it suits him to discuss the matter on Second Reading, well and good. It seems to me that it would be a mistake to discuss it twice over, and therefore, if he chooses to discuss it now, that will be in Order. He may, if he so chooses, let the Second Reading go, and then discuss his particular point on the Motion, which I almost think would be the better course, but I must leave that matter in the hands of the hon. Member himself.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am much obliged for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and I propose to raise the matter after the Second Reading has been taken.

Mr. Erroll: Further to that point of Order. If that course be followed, are we precluded from discussing any other Clauses than those mentioned in the Motion? By discussing the Bill on Second Reading, we should have a wider field. I am anxious to elucidate the point, because I have a Motion on the Order Paper relating to the Bill which is to follow.

Mr. Speaker: Most certainly, if the hon. Member wishes to discuss other Clauses than those which are set down in the Motion, that must be done on Second Reading. It cannot be done in the discussion on the Motion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 8, 88, 94, 95, 99 and 110.
This Motion relates to six of the Clauses of this Bill, but I do not think it will be necessary to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I would hasten to assure the impressive array of Parliamentary representatives for the City of Bradford whom I see opposite that I am not raising this matter in any spirit of hostility to a city, one of whose Parliamentary constituencies was represented in this House by my father for a number of years and all of which at one time fell within my grandfather's diocese. There seem to me to be raised on this Bill certain matters of substantial public importance which should at least be discussed before they come to be, as I hope and believe they will be, very strictly scrutinised by the Select Committee upstairs.
As I understand it, one of the two matters to which I wish to refer is contained in Clause 94, with which it is not intended to persist. At any rate, I have been so informed, and I notice that the hon. Lady the Member for North Bradford (Mrs. Nichol) is good enough to indicate that that is so. If that is the case, I shall not waste the time of the House about it. My Motion deals also with one or two minor Clauses, with which perhaps I had better deal before passing to the major matters.
Clause 8 empowers the Corporation of Bradford to operate a parcels service over a considerable radius outside the city as well as within it. I do not know that, on merits, there are any very strong objections to that, but I have reason to believe that the Corporation, in anticipation of receiving such powers, has been operating such a service for some time, and, no doubt, it will be helpful to the Select Committee to know whether they have taken that somewhat optimistic view of the decision of this House before it is actually made. Clause 94 has already been withdrawn, but I may say that the objection to it was on the ground that it was not a step which should be taken by one city alone. It involves a not very great extension of the criminal law in the direction of shifting the onus of proof.


and while a case may be made out for it I think that case should be made by a general Amendment of the criminal law. I am perfectly certain that none of the Parliamentary representatives of Bradford would have sought to justify that Clause by suggesting that this was a form of crime more rampant in their city than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Clause 99 proposes a compulsion upon window cleaners to be licensed. It is material to point out that two of the Private Bills of the present Session, those promoted by Barnsley and Halifax, contained such a Clause, and that both have now been withdrawn. I believe I am right in saying that, with those exceptions, there is no precedent for this Clause. Here again, this seems to be a matter on which there can be legitimate difference of opinion whether or not window cleaners should be free to carry on their very important trade without the permission of the local authority, but there seems to be no justification whatever for one city having this power while the general law remains as it is at present. It seems to me that the right way to deal with this matter, if it is desired to deal with it at all, is by way of a general Bill, and I would quote by way of illustration the fact that the somewhat analogous position of hairdressers is in fact being dealt with in a Private Member's Bill. I desire to take formal objection to this licensing Clause, lest it might seem to go by default, but that is not my major object in raising this matter tonight.
Clause 110 places the Corporation in a privileged position with regard to the law of contract, and it seems to call for some explanation, but the major matter to which I would refer is contained in Clause 88. I would make it quite clear that I am expressing no opinion at this stage whether this is a justifiable provision or not. All I am saving at this stage is that it seems to me that it is not a provision which should obtain a Second Reading in this House without some explanation and justification being given. Quite simply, what Clause 88 does is to proceed, retrospectively, to give power to the Corporation of Bradford to expend out of the general rate fund money which has already been spent. or to reimburse money already spent, and which could

not, at the time it was spent, have been legally expended from the general rate fund. In principle, that is a matter of
some importance, and it arises in this way.
As long ago as the summer of 1946, the City of Bradford, whose centenary was due in 1947, set up a committee to conduct the appropriate centenary celebrations, which duly took place in 1947 with what can only be considered disastrous financial consequences. I understand that, in round figures, the expenses involved amounted to £27,000, and the receipts to about £8,000, leaving, to be completely precise, a deficit of £19,593 13s. 3d. The precision of that figure reflects great credit on the punctilious accuracy of the City Treasurer's department. It had been anticipated that there might be some deficit, and a number of public-spirited citizens of Bradford had in fact guaranteed £8,000, which is a fact of some importance, but the deficit has turned out to be £19,500 in round figures. To deal with the matter, the Corporation last year sought to obtain by Provisional Order power to finance the deficit out of the proceeds of the Corporation's gas undertaking. It was a proposal which was no doubt not unconnected with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Fuel and Power to take over that undertaking from them, and, if I may express an opinion, I feel great sympathy with them in that attitude of mind. However, less sympathy was felt after various proceedings had been gone through by the relevant authorities, and on 9th June last the Unopposed Bills Committee of this House refused its sanction to that. Having failed in that way, they have now come forward with Clause 88 of the present Bill.
I only wish to make one further comment which is that, as I understand Clause 88—and I speak subject to correction—it proposes to authorise payment out of the general rate not only for such part of the deficit as is not covered by guarantees, but for the whole of the deficit, and is designed to have the consequence of relieving the guarantors of responsibility for the money which they guaranteed. It seems to me that the two parts of that deficit are on rather different footings. It would no doubt be an oppressive thing to compel the distinguished citizens who conducted the


centenary celebrations, and who are, I understand, at law personally liable, to pay. But when we come to the citizens who gave a personal guarantee against a deficit, I can see no reason why, when the deficit has resulted, they should not be called upon to implement their guarantees, as, otherwise, it seems purposeless for them to give a guarantee at all. It would seem quite unreasonable that, when a deficit has resulted, the ratepayers should have to make up the loss.
Without venturing to intrude in the complicated processes of Bradford's municipal politics, it is perhaps material to point out that, at the moment it is sought to impose this extra burden on the rates, that city is proposing to advance its rate from 19s. 6d. to 21s.in the £, the highest in its history. I am perfectly certain that hon. Members and the Select Committee upstairs will realise that this is not one of the more appropriate moments for asking the ratepayers of that city to accept a greater burden in that direction.
I have suggested to an hon. Member opposite that it might be convenient, and might save the time of the House, if an explanation and justification could speedily be given, but I would stress that such explanation ought to cover not only the general proposition of this retrospective financing of the financial catastrophe of the centenary, which itself requires justification, but still more, if my interpretation of the Clause is right—and I should like confirmation of that—why it is proposed that the ratepayers should have to carry that part of the liability which was covered by the personal guarantees of a number of distinguished individuals. That point is one which, quite frankly, disquiets me a good deal more than the rather larger sum involved in the other part of the deficit, and is one which I think merits explanation.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I beg to second the Motion.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. M. F. Titterington: May I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on the spirit in which he has introduced these somewhat controversial matters? I recall, as does the hon. Gentleman in his remarks, the association of his father and grandfather with Bradford and the Diocese of

Ripon. I am disposed to feel that he is not actuated by any form of destructive criticism. From the observations he has made, I venture to suggest—I hope I have drawn the correct inference—that he and his colleagues are prepared to support the Bill provided they receive reasonable assurances on the one or two points raised.
With regard to Clause 94, may I state categorically that that Clause has been withdrawn. It was discussed, submitted to a public meeting, and later a controversy was raised in the Press and elsewhere. The Council democratically reconsidered the matter, and the Clause has been definitely withdrawn.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: From a strictly procedural point of view, I think the hon. Gentleman will accept it from me that the Clause has not been withdrawn—it is, in fact, still in the Bill. I take it that what he means is that he is now giving an undertaking that it will be withdrawn when it comes before the Select Committee?

Mr. Titterington: The hon. Gentleman can certainly rely on that assurance. Clause 94 is to be withdrawn on the Committee stage. I do not propose after the hon. Gentleman's very kind comments to follow the controversial points he has raised because, like himself, I know that they can be handled in Committee. Therefore, in the interests of the time of the House, I want to come to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
He very correctly, and in chronological order, raised the whole question of the Bradford centenary. I want to make as clear as I can the motive behind the promotion of the Bradford centenary. It was promoted under a local Act which would have permitted the City Council to bear the whole of the expenses and the deficit incurred. Unfortunately, or fortunately as it might have been, they were actuated by a desire to bring in all the interests of the city, and all types or organisations. The local authority appointed an executive committee which took charge. In a way, the local authority contracted out of what was obviously a civic responsibility. But, in so doing, their motive was not to avoid any financial or other obligation, but rather to encourage a civic incentive


in an attempt to make the centenary celebrations a huge success. The Lord Mayor convened the meeting, and guarantees were given. May I assure the hon. Gentleman that the guarantors have met their obligations, and that the Bradford City Corporation have met theirs. But there is a deficit of something like £12,000. How and by whom is that deficit to be met?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I understand the hon. Gentleman, what he is saying is that the Clause now requests not the £19,000 which the draft provisional order originally requested, but the £19,000 less the £8,000 covered by the guarantees?

Mr. Titterington: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. All that the local authority are seeking to do is to pay off that deficit. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance that the motive behind the local authority's promotion of this pageant was very sound and proper. Everyone knows that Bradford is the pivotal town in the wool textile industry, and that far-reaching international obligations lay upon us to promote pageants of this type. The history of our town shows that when the opportunity arises our celebrations take the form of pageants and similar civic celebrations. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with all of the points I have made.
May I now come to the specific points which were made by the hon. Gentleman? He is correct in assuming that the local authority are willing to undertake the retrospective payment. It is true that the Order was sought and that facilities were not granted; they were short-circuited and we were unfortunate in not being able to liquidate the debt. Bradford people are great constitutionalists and they are taking the only constitutional action open to them, namely, legislative action. They hope that both sides of the House will reflect the same co-operative spirit as was shown by the local authority. All political parties co-operated in this pageant; not one political party has raised any objection to the proposals incorporated in this Bill. It was my privilege to attend the public meeting, and I can assure the House that there was no political motive of any description in seeking to liquidate this debt. It is a deficit which arose out of unfortunate circumstances—largely the weather—and involved the expense of

materials which have to be purchased for this sort of undertaking.
I am sure that on those grounds the hon. Gentleman will accept the assurance that the deficit was reasonably incurred and with a sense of responsibility. The local authority have decided to incorporate this Clause in the Bill, the motive being the acceptance of a moral obligation by the citizens as a whole. We invited people to assist and promote the pageant, and they in their turn have met their financial obligations, but the City has an obligation. In Bradford, trade is often transacted by a shake of the hand and a promise is often a bond; in this case there was a civic promise to promote the pageant and the decision to hand out the work was taken with the best motives. In those circumstances, I hope the House will accept my assurance that we are honouring our moral Obligations. Our tradition insists that we should do that, so does the fair name of our City; Bradford's promise is Bradford's bond, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and his colleagues will co-operate with us in giving this Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would the hon. Gentleman deal with the point which I raised on Clause 99, and say why his City requires this window-cleaning Clause upon which neighbouring cities have not insisted?

Mr. Titterington: This matter was raised at the public meeting to which I have referred. An objection was raised and was over-ruled. However, my colleagues and the authorities are prepared to give full weight to any observation which the hon. Gentleman may make on that matter. We want to clean our windows so that we can see through them clearly. If it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman and remove his objection to our Bill, I can give him this categorical assurance. In view of the objections which have been raised, I am authorised to say that the Parliamentary Sub-Committee of the Bradford City Council, who have power to act, will give instructions for Clause 99 to be withdrawn.

Mr. Challen: Does that mean that the Clause will be withdrawn?

Mr. Titterington: I have already said, on the authority of the Bradford Parliamentary Sub-Committee, that the Clause


will be withdrawn, and I again assure the hon. Gentleman that Bradford's bond will be honoured.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance, which I am certain is valid and binding. I cannot be wholly satisfied with the explanation of how this unfortunate matter with respect to Clause 88 has arisen, but I do not think it would be right at this stage to press the Motion. I therefore beg to ask the leave of the House to withdraw it, while, of course, reserving all rights, if at an appropriate later stage it should seem necessary, to take any action which may be open to me.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WEST BROMWICH CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: It might be for the convenience of the House if the Instruction to the Committee which is down in my name were discussed along with other references to the Bill. Our main points of difference are contained in the Instruction to the Committee, but there are one or two subsidiary points relating to the other Clauses to which certain of my hon. Friends wish to refer. Therefore, it is felt that the general discussion might take place on the Second Reading and we could move the Instruction quite formally and without further Debate.
This Bill, which has a large number of Clauses, is largely non-controversial in its effect, but there are certain Clauses to which we on this side of the House take reasonable objection. The first one is Clause 90 which deals with the sterilisation of meat for feeding animals. The purpose of this Clause is to make it compulsory to sterilise meat which is to be sold as animal food. The reason behind the Clause is that meat sold as animal food is usually derived from carcasses which have died a natural or unnatural death and which have not been properly slaughtered in accordance with our laws and practice to make them fit for human consumption.
It has been represented that such carcasses might have been heavily contaminated while the animal was alive or lay dying, and that that meat, although intended for animal consumption, might by accident find its way into a butcher's shop where meat is sold for human consumption, or might indeed be bought at an animal meat shop and then be consumed by human beings. By sterilising all such meat, the intention of the Clause is to prevent the risk of infection of human beings by diseases present in the animal before death.
The intention of the Clause is, of course, admirable and I have no quarrel with its intention but rather with the lack of efficacy with which its intention can be carried out. The fact is that such sterilisation only affords partial protection to the public. The carcass after sterilisation is equally liable to infection. It may, indeed, be imagined to be perfectly safe through having been sterilised, but of course it is just as liable to contamination as any other carcass. The Clause thus gives a false sense of security to those who handle animal meat. It is particularly important that no such false sense of security should be built up at a time when meat supplies are regrettably short.
Furthermore to introduce the Clause in this single private Bill is to introduce legislation if it be necessary at all, in a piecemeal manner. I understand that the Birmingham Corporation has this Clause and so has one other town in the Black Country—Dudley, I believe. West Bromwich also seeks this Clause. We thus find that there are small oases in the central area of Britain where the meat is supposedly sterilised, but there are large areas surrounding these oases where the existing conditions will continue to hold good. There may be, if I may so describe it, a traffic of meat between the sterile area and the non-sterile area—a perfectly honourable traffic, but leading to the removal of the effectiveness of this Clause.
If, indeed, sterilisation is desirable and is to be effective, surely it is properly a matter for public Bill legislation. Indeed, I think it is stated in Sir Gilbert Campion's "Introduction to Parliamentary Procedure" that it is a proper reason for the deletion of a Clause from a Private Bill that the subject matter could, and ought to be, handled by


public legislation. If sterilisation is indeed an effective safeguard, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries should take the matter up and deal with it nationally. If the case is not so proven, why insert in the Bill a Clause of this sort which could only lead to a false sense of security and impose additional tasks upon those people who are honourably trying to supply meat for this rather specialised market?
The next group of Clauses which it is our hope the Committee will be instructed to delete relates to the registration of massage and other establishments. The group of Clauses numbered 91 to 101 inclusive seeks to make it compulsory for masseurs, massage establishments, chiropodists, manicurists, and some other specialised establishments to be registered and licensed. Clause 92 prohibits the conduct of any of these practices without due registration and licence. These Clauses have been introduced in other Bills before, notably in certain London Bills, and it might therefore appear that there is a well-established precedent for them. The registration was, however, originally introduced for an entirely different purpose, namely to control the possible growth of undesirable premises.
It is not part of the West Bromwich Corporation's case that this control is required for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Rather do they wish to control massage establishments, chiropodists and manicurists for, if I may say so, the joy of controlling them. In fact, one of the main reasons given for their desire to have these Clauses is that they are anxious to prevent a mushroom growth of manicurists and so on. They give no evidence that there is any sign of such a mushroom growth, no evidence that there is an abnormal rush by unreliable people to West Bromwich to attend to people's feet there. It strikes me as a wholly undesirable restriction akin to the strange nature of the Hairdressers' Bill which was introduced privately a few days ago. Of course, there will be a licensing fee so that if the Clauses are given to the Corporation there will be a useful additional source of revenue for the Corporation's treasurer. As the evidence so far supplied to me privately is so flimsy that

I feel there is no justification for these Clauses remaining in the Bill.
I turn to Clause 102, which deals with the transmission of entertainments. The Corporation wishes to be able to transmit entertainments from one property to another where those two properties are not adjoining. At first sight, of course, that seems a quite reasonable request. For example, the idea is that if there should be a live band playing in one park it should be possible for the Corporation to relay the live band's performance to another park or another establishment within the Corporation's boundaries. So far, well and good. Against that I have no objection. But on this side of the House we desire to see proper protection afforded to residents of a formerly quite area where they feel that a nuisance is being created. Some residents may have chosen their houses near a small park noted for its quiet. They may have wanted to get away from bands and other forms of public entertainment in public parks and, therefore, have chosen a district near a secluded park. Imagine their discomfiture if they find that, worse than a live band, they are to have a loudspeaker braying at them for hours at a time.
The extension of broadcast relays, of course, lends itself to the dissemination of gramophone records and B.B.C. recordings, so there may be a constant drone of noise in these formerly quiet centres of the town and recreational centres of the town, and as things stand at present the ordinary individual has precious little redress if a nuisance is created, precious little appeal against it. I know he has common law appeal; he could raise the matter against the Corporation, and I think he could sue the Corporation for damages, but there are few people who would be prepared to go to the legal expense of taking the Corporation to court. While, therefore, we do not object to the Clause in principle we should like to see some safeguard introduced to enable the legitimate rights of residents to be protected.
I turn to Clause 104 which is another Clause which aims at the registration of a particular section of the community. This time it is entertainment proprietors. The Clause will make it compulsory for all entertainment proprietors to be registered, including cinema and theatre owners. The Corporation has informed


me privately that its aim is to be able to control wandering fairs and circuses and mobile amusement units, to quote the modern way of describing these establishments. It strikes me as a curious way of going about it to insist on the compulsory registration of every cinema and theatre in the city, to insist on the compulsory registration of the humble pin-table saloon, to insist on the compulsory registration of a mobile Punch and Judy show.
This Clause seems a very heavy-handed way of achieving a simple object—if the object be necessary at all—namely, to control mobile fairs. I urge that this Clause be deleted from the Bill, for I think it is another example of control for control's sake. I have mentioned the pintable. If the pintable saloons are indeed the menace to the young of our country that they are sometimes made out to be, the proper course is public legislation. The problem should not be handled in a piecemeal manner. If the danger exists, and I doubt it, London ought to be prohibiting or registering these pintable saloons and not leaving it to West Bromwich to show the way. It is a matter for public legislation if legislation is required at all.
To Clause 140 we have much the same objection as to the corresponding Clause in the Bradford Corporation Bill. West Bromwich Corporation are seeking powers to run a parcels service. On the surface that is an innocent enough request. But, really, is it necessary? We already have a public Post Office capable of taking parcels from one point to any other point within the town or, indeed, within the British Isles. In addition, there is the British Transport Commission which, if there is a need for the independent carriage of parcels in the district, can surely provide—and, indeed, should provide—the necessary service. I am glad to see the Minister of Transport nodding his head. I hope he will give me his support in this matter, because it surely is most uneconomic and wrong for yet a third public agency to enter into this business of parcels carriage. We have two already, both subsidised. Surely, we do not want a third. If we are to have competition in the field of transport—as I believe we should have, to obtain proficient services then it should be competition between private agencies and

not competition between State or municipal agencies all subsidised at the expense of the taxpayers and ratepayers.
Those are my principal objections to the Bill. I do not object, of course, to the Bill as a whole, but I certainly feel that the Clauses I have mentioned are objectionable and should be deleted, if the Bill is to go through the House in the same harmonious way as, it seems, the Bradford Corporation Bill will.

7.42 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I want to be punctilious in avoiding repetition of what my hon. Friend has already put before the House in the consideration of this Bill, but there are one or two points I should like to add to what he has said. I think that the fundamental care the House has to take is, of the danger of the infectiousness of controls. One of the major ills from which the country is suffering—that is admitted by both sides of the House—is the plethora of controls. The "big brother" controls emanate from this honourable House, and the smaller relations from the local authorities. We have seen local authority powers very much curtailed—a process with which we on this side of the House do not agree. Local authorities have functions to carry on on a much wider and more important scale than, in fact, is being left to them. So it is, perhaps, natural that their exuberance should find expression in controls over such things as doubtful meat and doubtful massage. However, we have to be quite sure, it seems to me, that those minor controls left to local authorities are necessary and helpful, and that they achieve the desired results.
There is one question to which I may, perhaps, have a reply. It is in connection with Clause 24, by which the local authority seeks power to divert a highway so as to make a new highway more commodious to the public. That sounds perfectly reasonable. However, in subsection (9) it is said:
Where any highway is diverted in accordance with an order made under this section the substituted highway shall be repairable by the person (if any) by whom the original highway was repairable.
It seems to me, subject to some explanation that that may bring about very considerable


suffering. A highway exists; it is diverted; it may be a very much longer highway after the diversion; it may have its foundation on softer, more boggy ground, and so may need more frequent and expensive repairing. It would seem only fair that if the local authority is to have powers so to divert, it should not at the same time be able to pass on to the individual who was responsible for the original highway what may be a very much increased cost in connection with the new highway. I should he obliged if the hon. Gentleman will tell me whether there is any safeguard.
My hon. Friend has mentioned the question of the sterilisation of animal food stuffs, in which, I think, there may be very considerable risk. I would add only this to what he has said, that if this particular Clause is to be made watertight, there must be subsidiary powers taken to destroy that sterilised meat after a certain period of time, when it may have become once again infected; that there ought to be powers to segregate it from any kind of food which may be used for human consumption; and, finally, that there ought to be powers to prevent unsterilised animal food from coming into the area. If those steps are not taken there may he a situation riddled like a sieve with the possibilities of escape, or of avoidance of the very purpose which the Bill is intended to achieve.
As to the Clause about the registration of massage and other establishments, should like to have an explanation why, while there appears to be a right of appeal by an individual who is refused renewal of an existing licence, there is no appeal for an individual who makes application for a licence for the first time. It seems to me that under Clause 94 (3) provision is made for appeal by an individual who has had a licence and who has had it taken away from him, but that there is no similar appeal for an individual who makes application for a licence for the first time, and has it refused. It seems to me also that the penalties under this Clause are very
heavy—£50 for contravening, starting an establishment without a licence, or for misrepresentation in obtaining a licence. Penalties of £50 and £20 daily may be very savage. I think that that does not

add to the desirability of the Clause. Then, is it really necessary that where a medical practitioner intends to start an establishment of this kind, he must be vouched for by two independent medical practitioners, and that this voucher must be renewed annually? Surely, that is a reflection upon the medical profession, which is certainly not necessary or desirable.
Finally, under the Clause which controls the registration of entertainment it is proposed virtually to force any proprietor of any entertainment establishment to apply for a licence for the kind of entertainment to be provided. It will be understood that the owner of premises which provide entertainment cannot be sure all the year round that the same kind of entertainment will be provided. Impresarios come along and offer a particular turn or a particular entertainment, and the owner of the premises has to decide whether or not that is the sort of thing the public are likely to swallow. If he has started his year with an intention of putting on only, let us say concerts—which, I understand, the Bill does not require to be registered—somebody may come along to provide "a circus exhibition of human beings"—whatever that may mean—and the owner of the premises has to run along to apply for a licence in respect of his premises for that purpose. I should like to hear the reply to these points and then consider whether the House should be invited to pass the Bill in its present form.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Austin: The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) represents a Division abutting on mine. The reason for my intervention is that I have been asked to speak by the Clerk of the Urmston Urban District Council, in my Division, which is of a political complexion similar to that of the hon. Gentleman. It is rather a paradox that a Conservative Council should ask me to support a Bill which a Conservative Member has criticised tonight.
I want to comment on two Clauses only. The first is Clause 90. The hon. Gentleman said that this Clause seeks to safeguard any person who may buy meat intended for animal consumption, and thus injure himself. I think that the Clause does not only seek to do that; it seeks to safeguard, too, the animals for


whom this food is intended, and not only human beings who may buy this foodstuff for consumption. The hon. Gentleman represents a Cheshire constituency. It would not be out of place to remind him of what happened recently in a Lancashire Division at Burnley. Not long ago, a certain number of people were ill through eating meat pies made of horse flesh. While I condemn the piecemeal aspect of local authority Bills and admit, with the hon. Gentleman, that it would be much better if this matter were provided for nationally by the Government. I am certain that the Council of Burnley would have been very grateful if the safeguard contained in this Measure had prevented the scandal and outcry which happened recently there following on certain illnesses.

Mr. Erroll: While I can go a long way with the hon. Gentleman, the weakness of the Clause is that it would not prevent what happened at Burnley. The meat could become contaminated again after sterilisation, and Burnley would have suffered from a false sense of security as well as from a great sense of tragedy.

Mr. Austin: I assume that the objection which the hon. Gentleman raised applies to all meat if it is allowed to go beyond a certain stage. That is not an argument against this Bill. The hon. Gentleman is making an argument for the provisions of the Measures contained in the Bill if they are applied nationally, and I agree with him. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his party are not going to press this matter.

Mr. Erroll: It is surely a proper reason for moving an Instruction to the Committee that a matter which is dealt with in a private Bill is a proper subject for public legislation.

Mr. Austin: I should be the last to deny the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues the democratic right to ventilate the matter which is now being discussed in this Chamber.
I wish to pass to Clause 102 with regard to the broadcast and relay of public entertainment. May I give an example? I recently had occasion to benefit by this measure in my own Division. I challenged Mr. Storey, who is a candidate at the next Election and who is to oppose

me on behalf of the Conservatives, to a debate. The meeting was held in the public baths which hold about 2,000 people. So popular was the debate that there had to be an overflow meeting in a building on the same premises to which the speeches were relayed. Something like 500 people crowded into the second building to hear the debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who won?"] I am not sure whether I am advocating an argument in favour of the Clause, because incidentally it was agreed by the Conservatives and everyone else that, in my own humble and modest way, I had wiped the floor with my opponent. There are other occasions which are not so frequent in the life of a council and its activities, where they seek to provide local residents with certain entertainments.
There comes to my mind the occasion of an annual horticultural show which is held in two large fields. The fields are divided by a road. There we have an occasion eminently suitable for the provisions of Clause 102. As the clerk to the council told me, there may be other occasions where it may be necessary to have entertainments carried on in a park, and relayed to another park. May I put this personal matter to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale? The occasion may arise when he may find the provisions of the Clause useful too; that is when he accepts my challenge and allows me to debate with him at Stamford Hall in the Borough of Altrincham. It may be necessary to cater for an overflow because of the crowd which I am certain will turn up to hear the debate. I am still awaiting the hon. Gentleman's response to my challenge. Finally, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made out a case on either of these Clauses, and I certainly hope that the House will not support him in any way.

Mr. Cecil Poole: I am sure that the House will not quarrel with the spirit in which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) has spoken. It falls to me to give the best answer that I can to the points which he has raised. I feel that most of them are more properly points for a Select Committee; they are not Second Reading points. They are not matters of great fundamental principle because none of them shows any new departure; each one of them has been embodied in private


Bills before, as the hon. Gentleman admitted. If I deal with them briefly, it is not out of disrespect. Clause 90, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, deals with provisions for the sterilisation of meat. He brought forward an unusual argument when he said that there was not much point in sterilising this meat because at some subsequent point it might again become contaminated. Surely that argument would apply to the whole of the meat which is sold for human consumption.

Mr. Erroll: The point which I perhaps did not bring out clearly was that because the meat had been sterilised, many people might think that it was safer than meat intended for human consumption which had not been sterilised.

Mr. Poole: In that case, the same argument holds good. If people are entitled to assume that meat for human consumption has been inspected by His Majesty's inspectors that, if the argument remains good, ought to give people a sense of false security in eating their Sunday joint. The argument does not really hold water.

Colonel Hutchison: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is comparing a national action with a local action and consequently a limited area of action in the case of this Bill. National action is one thing, and one can be tolerably sure that the meat is made safe, but where one is dealing only with a small area there may be some danger.

Mr. Poole: I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that intervention, because it leads me to the point I was about to make in this connection. It has already been said that Birmingham and Dudley have these very powers at present, and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale asserted that there might be a danger of unsterilised meat being moved into a sterilised area. In practice the reverse has been the case. Since Birmingham had its powers for the compulsory sterilisation of meat, some of the people in West Bromwich who have been selling this type of meat have, of their own volition, taken it upon themselves to sterilise the meat. The example set by Birmingham and Dudley has been followed, without any compulsion, by some of those who are retailing such

meat in West Bromwich, and all West Bromwich now seeks to do is to extend the practice so that all those who sell this meat shall be in exactly the same position.
There is a danger of people being misled into a position of false security, and assuming, because some people have to sterilise the meat, that all have to do so. West Bromwich cannot legislate for the whole country; their responsibility is limited to their own boundaries; they seek to put their own house in order. If West Bromwich is taking a power which perhaps even London has not got, that merely bears out the argument some of us. have adduced before, that the Midlands are very much ahead of even the London County Council in some respects
Turning to the Clauses dealing with the licensing of masseurs, I entirely agree with the reasons the hon. Member gave for the taking of these powers in London. In the presence of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) I should hesitate to suggest that in West Bromwich there arose the same position, needing the same powers. Nevertheless, it is the fact that the treatments catered for in this Bill are forms. of treatment which are new, which are growing very rapidly, in which very great strides are being made, and from which many members of the public are deriving considerable benefit. I, therefore, venture to suggest that in the interests of all concerned the services given should be of the highest possible standard, given by fully qualified people, and given under decent and proper conditions. It is no use waiting until some of these establishments have become undesirable places before seeking to legislate. It is very much better to shut the stable door before the horse has gone, than to do so afterwards.
That is all West Bromwich seeks to do in this series of Clauses dealing with the registration of masseurs: namely, to ensure that the various forms of treatment set out in these Clauses shall be carried out under the best possible conditions and by the best possible people. I am sure that those who think further safeguards are necessary will find the corporation willing to discuss in the Select Committee the question of protection. Of course, the fullest protection is given in Clause 168 to those who are aggrieved.

Mr. Erroll: Only existing practitioners.

Mr. Poole: I agree. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that these points will be considered on the Select Committee.

Colonel Hutchison: I understand that this speech is, so to speak, the official reply. Could the hon. Member tell us the answer about the forcing of a medical practitioner to produce two independent medical practitioners to vouch for his bona fides in conducting a massage establishment? Surely that is unnecessary. I should be glad if he would look into that before the Committee stage.

Mr. Poole: I entirely agree—although this is only the semi-official reply—that it does seem to be using a very big hammer to crack this small nut. Again, I consider that to be a committee point which could be better argued upstairs.
I pass now to Clause 102, to which objection has also been taken, providing for the transmission of entertainment. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale said that he had no objection in principle, but that he felt there was a danger that some people who had built houses near quiet parks might be disturbed. I have had many years' experience on local government bodies, and I have never known anyone aggrieved by anything done by the corporation who did not find very definite and positive means of making their objections known. In any case, it is desirable that the corporation should have such a power. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) gave many instances in which it is desirable for such powers to be granted, and it would be quite wrong to withhold from West Bromwich the right to relay some forms of entertainment from one public park to another. This again is a Committee point which ought not to be discussed on Second Reading.
Exception was taken to Clause 104, which deals with the registration of entertainment proprietors. I think there is some misapprehension here. This Clause does not deal with those people who leisurely travel along, set up their establishments today and are gone with the mists of the morning. It deals only with those people who become permanently established in this form of entertainment.

I do not know how the hon. Member reconciles objecting to the relaying of certain entertainment with opposing some measure of protection to those who may have a funfair permanently established outside their house or shop. In Birmingham recently a very large store, the Birmingham Co-operative store, had to take action against a permanently established funfair which continuously blared out music, so that people working in offices near by, could not even hear the clients who came to consult them. It is that type of entertainment, plus the permanently established pin-table saloons, which it is desirable to have licensed. I am all for the licensing of those people who run pin-table saloons, because frequently they become the haunts of very undesirable people, as some of us saw in London in pre-war days.
I turn to Clause 140, dealing with the powers to run a parcels service. The Minister of Transport tells me that in the Select Committee the British Transport Commission will be opposing this Clause, so the hon. Members who opposed it will be fortified by that support. I think that the corporation would have provided a service which is not provided by the British Transport Commission, and certainly not by the Post Office. This concerns the carriage of parcels from Mrs. Jones in the High Street to Mrs. Smith in another road just down the street; it is something which the British Transport Commission cannot do, and which the Post Office will not do in under 24 hours. The Walsall Corporation, on which I served for many years, has this power, and has used it to great advantage. I myself have utilised it at election time for getting election material from one point of the borough to another; it gives a speedier service than either of the other two agencies. It is indeed novel to find hon. Members opposite opposing some competition in a transport undertaking.
I now wish to deal with the point made about Clause 24, regarding public and private highways. I confess that the point raised was new to me, and when I looked it up I was somewhat shocked and frightened by it. I can, after consultation with the corporation representatives, give a firm undertaking that they are perfectly willing to look into this and to put in such safeguards as are necessary to prevent


harm to anyone affected by these provisions. I can give very firm assurance on that point, although, as I say it is something which came up unexpectedly. I had no idea that there was any objection to the Clause.
I think I have covered, perhaps somewhat inadequately, most of the points that have been raised. If there are any further arguments on the Clause I urge that they be left to the Select Committee because that is where they rightly lie. I hope we may prevail upon the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale not to move his Instruction and to let us have the Second Reading.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: We have had an extremely happy evening so far, in that these discussions have been carried on with good will by both sides of the House. In order to continue this state of happiness I wonder whether the opponents of the Bill and those supporting the Bill, could come to a compromise. I believe that the Clauses which we feel most strongly about are Clauses 91 to 101, Clause 104 and Clause 140. Although I have not the assurance of my hon. Friend, I believe that I am right in saying that he might be prepared to withdraw all opposition to the Bill if those Clauses were withdrawn. In order to preserve the happy arrangement that we have had so far, would the corporation be prepared, through their spokesman in this House, to withdrawn those Clauses?

Mr. C. Poole: With the leave of the House perhaps I may reply. I am sorry that I must disappoint the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor). His suggestion was a little audacious. I am sure he did not expect me to agree to it—unless he thinks that I am a little more gullible than I am. I have no power to give that assurance. I urge the hon. Member to seek that assurance in the proper place, the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clauses 90 to 101, 104 and 140; and to insert in Clause 102 safeguards to protect residents from possible nuisance.

Colonel Hutchison: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (CHARGES FOR DUSTBINS) ORDER

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 25th January, 1949, entitled the Local Authorities (Charges for Dustbins) Order, 1949 (S.I. 1949, No. 120), a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled.

8.13 p.m.

Captain Crowder: We now return to a consideration of the order, and I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health for keeping him here for an hour. I could not help the discussion being interrupted.
As I was saying, there may be a case for local authorities being empowered to provide what the order calls:
a movable receptacle for the deposit of ashes or refuse
in certain cases, but until we have had a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary I cannot see the reason why power is taken to double the charge from half a crown to 5s. per annum. Under the Public Health Act, 1936, local authorities may make an annual charge not exceeding 2s. 6d. for each dustbin provided and maintained by them. I do not quite know what "maintained by them" means, but I assume that it would cover superficial repair. That does not seem to be a very heavy item.
By this order the authorities are empowered to increase the charge by 100 per cent., to 5s. Without some explanation we cannot see why this 100 per cent. increase is necessary, unless the real idea behind the scheme is to enable local authorities to charge for the whole service of removal of refuse and the disposal of the same, in addition to providing the actual dustbins. One can buy a dustbin nowadays, I am told, quite well and easily at 25s., and that the life of such a dustbin is about 10 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Therefore, half a crown a year is adequate for the upkeep of such a dustbin.
I now revert to the Memorandum by the Ministry of Health which will be


found in the third report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. The solicitor and legal adviser to the Ministry of Health states in paragraph 2 that the object of the order is:
to enable local authorities to continue the service of the provision and maintenance of the dustbins … without financial loss.
In paragraph 3 he states that owing to the increased cost of dustbins and to their reduced durability, the permitted charge of half a crown is no longer adequate. I have explained that I do not agree and that I think the present charge is adequate.
I submit that the Ministry of Health in the appendix to the report of the Committee are giving away the whole reason for the proposed increased charge in paragraph 6, when they referred to the
collection and disposal of refuse.
That is a very different proposition from the actual maintaining of those receptacles. I submit that a proper consideration may not have been given to the order before it was issued and that the House should not without adequate explanation give power to local authorities to increase the charge of half a crown to 5s. So far as any ordinary person is concerned, it seems that most of this extra money which can now be demanded under the order will go towards the actual removing and disposal of the refuse and not only tho maintenance of the dustbin: Therefore, we desire to get a full explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Challen: It may seem very small to be standing here in a comparatively empty House of Commons talking about dustbins and difference between half a crown and 5s. chargeable by local authorities in respect of dustbins, but there is a very important constitutional point involved. We are being asked to enable the Minister, by order, to alter an Act of Parliament, instead of introducing an amending Bill himself on the subject. We have a committee which deals with statutory instruments. It was set up as the result of a long agitation by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder) and myself, when we were sitting on the other side some years ago. We persuaded the Government to set up this

Select Committee, which reports on statutory instruments.
It is very seldom that the Select Committee report adversely upon a particular order, although something like 2,000 or 3,000 orders come before it every year. When this committee does raise a question on a particular order, it is incumbent on the House to consider seriously what constitutional issue is involved. In this case, the committee had before it the memorandum which has been referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend and which was signed by a gentleman calling himself—perhaps I know Mr. Harrison—the solicitor and legal adviser to the Ministry of Health. This House cannot be regulated and advised by anybody calling himself "solicitor and legal adviser to the Ministry of Health." This House has to be advised by the order in question and the principles in question. In his memorandum Mr. Harrison says:
It is the view of the Department that the purpose of the Order …
He goes on:
As to the provision of dustbins generally, Section 75 (1) of the Public Health Act … 
He goes on to say:
From the general tenor of the above provisions there is a clear intention that dustbins shall be provided at the expense.… 
In paragraph (4) he says:
It may be urged that the service could be maintained despite financial loss.
I should have thought that it could have been. Paragraph (5) says:
It may further be urged that the maintenance of the service under Section 75 (3) is not obligatory upon local authorities.
Paragraph (6) says:
It may finally be observed that Defence Regulation 56 (1, B), coupled with the definition of public utility undertaking' in Defence Regulation 100, applies in particular to the authorisation of local authorities who carry on an undertaking for the collection … 
I cannot go on quoting the rigmarole. Although he has already said, "It may finally be observed," in paragraph (7) he says:
A further point on which the Select Committee have requested an explanation is the question why the object in view was not attained by an amendment by Act of Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1936.
He then says:
As to this, the course suggested would have been taken by the Department had there


been any legislation in view in which the relevant amendment could be properly incorporated. No such opportunity presents itself at present.
Why not? Why should we not introduce a small amending Bill to deal with the question of dustbins? We have Private Members' Bills every week and the Government have the rest of the time of the House to introduce a small amendment which would go through unopposed. The memorandum goes on:
But it is intended that upon the first suitable occasion that course will be taken.
I suggest that the Government take that occasion tomorrow and withdraw this order tonight.

8.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr, Blenkinsop): I am very glad that this serious subject has been discussed in such a serious vein tonight because, whatever hon. Members on both sides may think, this is an important service provided by local authorities, and however amusing some hon. Members opposite may think this subject, it is a matter of some concern to very many local authorities. We are therefore glad that the matter has been raised tonight. I think the explanation we can give will satisfy the hon. Members who have raised it.
I want first to make it clear that the proposal to introduce this order was at the request of several local authorities, and, indeed, of local authority associations. In spite of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Captain Crowder), they are faced with an increasing charge, and in many cases they find that they cannot carry out the service purely of providing the dustbins and maintaining them in good repair on the charge which is permitted under the Public Health Act. They therefore asked my right hon. Friend for power to increase the charges to enable them to cover their costs, a perfectly reasonable and proper thing for them to do, and after some investigation of the practice of various local authorities my right hon. Friend agreed to this procedure.
Hon. Members opposite, and in particular the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), raised the matter largely on the basis of the actual legal rectitude of

this procedure rather than the actual procedure of the service. I assure the hon. Member that its provision is clearly covered by the quotation which he read out:
That the purpose should fall within that expressed in Section 1 (1, a) of the Act of 1945 for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating services essential to the wellbeing of the community as to secure their availability at fair prices.
That was the quotation from the explanatory memorandum which the Ministry submitted to the Select Committee.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman gives me that assurance, but the fact remains that the Select Committee reported that this order:
Appears to make an unusual and unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statutes under which it is made.
He has that to get over.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Certainly it is unusual because it has not been used in this form before, but that is not to say that something which is unusual is necessarily wrong. Very far from it.

Sir J. Mellor: But "unexpected"?

Mr. Blenkinsop: Yes, it may be unexpected to hon. Members opposite, and no doubt to some extent unexpected to hon. Members in all parts of the House, but, again, that in no way means that it is a wrong provision. It is clearly covered by those words because it is quite clear that the provision by which local authorities can provide a dubtbin service is quite essential in the view of the local authorities to the welfare of their community. They feel that to allow this provision to be made by the individual householder, as in many cases they are makes for very real difficulty. It means that we get all sorts of sizes, sh•apes and qualities of dustbins.
I do not want to go into great detail on this matter. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has not investigated this matter quite as thoroughly as he might, because it matters a great deal to the efficiency of the service that we should have a fairly standard type of dustbin to collect and that we should maintain it in proper condition. If these dustbins are not maintained in proper condition, then very serious results may ensue. Open dustbins might mean a vast onslaught of flies, a very serious matter.


I thought at one moment that the Prayer was being put down as the first blow of our opponents' campaign for open enterprise by means of open dustbins.

Sir J. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the suitability of dustbins. If he will look at Section 1 (1) of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, he will find that that only refers to availability at fair prices. We are not concerned at all with what is appropriate or suitable; the question is availability.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is also concerned with the success and improvement of this service, but so far as availability is concerned, where local authorities leave this matter entirely to the individual householder, although it is true that they have powers of compulsion on householders in certain districts, these powers are very lengthy and in the meantime the flies may be getting out of the dustbins. I should have thought that hon. Members on all sides of the House would have supported my right hon. Friend in taking any necessary precautions to prevent this sad and dangerous happening.
So far as landlords are concerned, they are able to charge what they wish for dustbins in their original agreements, and surely that is a totally different position? We believe that this small Order provides for an essential service needed by many local authorities, and we feel that hon. Members on all sides of the House would not wish to take any action which would cause difficulty to local authorities in the proper carrying out of their work.
It might be right to mention that we have explained in the memorandum put forward by the Ministry of Health that we would ourselves have desired, had there been the opportunity, to make the necessary amendment by form of a Bill to the House but, as there was no immediate prospect of a Bill coming forward, it was obviously foolish to let this state of affairs continue without taking action as immediate as possible. I hope this explanation will be satisfactory to the hon. Member who raised the matter, and I hope the local authorities will be able to carry forward this vital and necessary service.

Captain Crowder: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, could he say what

he considers is the cost of these dustbins, and how long he thinks they should last before they want repairing?

Mr. Blenkinsop: With pleasure. They run at varying prices. Some local authorities can purchase them for around 20s., and some local authorities pay more. With regard to the life of the dustbin, the hon. Member is extremely lucky if he gets a dustbin to last 10 years. I would have thought it was a much shorter life than that, but he will contribute towards a longer life by effective servicing.

Sir J. Mellor: On the question of the life of the dustbin, I notice that in paragraph 3 of the memorandum of the Ministry of Health submitted to the Select Committee, they said:
Owing, however, to the increased cost of dustbins and to their reduced durability the permitted charge is no longer adequate. …
I would like to know whether their reduced durability is due to inferior quality or to the fact that the corporation workmen throw them around with a great deal more vigour than they used to do. However, that is really beside my main point. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the local authorities wanted this order. I can well understand that. They always want more power, more scope, more latitude, but our contention—which followed the view of the Select Committee—was that this order was not really within the powers contemplated by the Supplies and Services Act, 1945.
In dismissing my point about the parallel case of the landlords of rent-controlled premises, I think the Parliamentary Secretary was quite wrong. He said that landlords can charge for dustbins what they wish in their original agreements. Of course they can, if they are making agreements now, but I referred specifically to landlords of existing rent-controlled premises, and their tenants have become in most cases statutory tenants who have the benefit of the services which the landlords agreed to provide in their original agreements—I hope I may have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Tolley: Get on with it.

Sir J. Mellor: Whatever the hon. Member may say, he has not, I am quite certain, even looked at the order. This


is a matter of some importance. At any rate the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments thought so. I invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the point that the landlords of rent controlled premises, by their original agreements, are in many cases bound to provide certain services, including the supply of dustbins. By this order he has provided that local authorities who are not liable to supply them but may supply them, shall be entitled to double the charge. If that is right, what conceivable ground has he for not including in the order a provision that landlords may also double the charge in respect of the dustbins?

Mr. Blenkinsop: If the hon. Baronet really wants an answer to that point, it should be pointed out that a landlord is not a public utility, and we are dealing here with public utilities.

Sir J. Mellor: No, but if it is competent by virtue of the provisions of the Transitional Powers Act, 1945, for the Minister to make an order which in effect amends the Public Health Act of 1936, it would equally be within his power for a similar purpose to make an order amending the Rent Acts. That I maintain. I do not suggest that it would be any more appropriate, or that in law it would be any more valid, for him to do so, but it would be no less valid, and certainly equally fair. Indeed, there is a far stronger case in equity for providing such assistance to landlords than there is in the case of local authorities, for the simple reason that in the case of local authorities this service is permissive, and in the case of a large number of landlords, who provide services in rent-controlled premises, it is obligatory.
I say that the Parliamentary Secretary has dismissed the point without serious consideration, which I much regret. This order is not within the powers provided by the Statute, and I further regret that the Ministry of Health have not taken the Debate more seriously. I hope they will on reflexion think better of it and will introduce a Bill and so, by Statute, cure the evil they are doing by this order.

Question put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — DEMOBILISATION (CLOTHING ALLOWANCE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Chetwynd: I am pleased that tonight we have ample time to discuss the subject which I wish to raise on this Adjournment. That is the provision of a clothing allowance for those persons now being demobilised from the Forces. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence will soon be here to listen to the arguments, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will report the facts to him when he comes. This is a matter which will be of increasing importance as the next few months go by, and unless something is done on the lines which I shall suggest later, it will have a potentially dangerous effect on the morale of the National Serviceman and, more important, it will have a decidedly deterrent effect upon recruiting.
All of us who passed through demobilisation centres at the end of the war can speak highly of the organisation set up to deal with those men and to provide them with civilian clothing. I want to pay now a tribute to the efficiency of that organisation. Although I was not fortunate myself in the suit I acquired, nevertheless I believe that most of the people were highly satisfied with the quality and standard of their civilian clothing. The present position is governed by Army Council Instruction No. 892, dated 22nd October, 1947. I had better read it, so that hon. Members may know the facts. It says:
Other ranks will be permitted to retain as their own property the following articles of clothing: One pair of part-worn. serviceable boots or shoes; one shirt and tie, vests, drawers and socks in possession at the time of release.
Then it says:
Clothing on payment.—No civilian outfit or cash grant in lieu will be issued. In special cases where an other rank is able to show that he is not in possession of civilian clothing and is without sufficient funds to provide it, he will be allowed to purchase one suit of battle-dress, dyed blue, and during the months November to March inclusive, a greatcoat, dyed blue …
Supplementary clothing coupons will be issued by the civil authorities under arrangements by the Board of Trade.


I understand that the practice is for these people to receive 60 clothing coupons.
The Minister of Labour announced the decision to suspend the issue of demobilisation clothing in the House on 21st January, 1947. Later on it was amplified and clarified by the Minister of Defence on 5th May, 1948, when, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert), he said:
Men called up in 1947 and 1948 for two years or less will, on release, receive a supplementary allowance of 60 clothing coupons. They will not receive a cash grant for the purchase of clothing; they will, however, be allowed to retain certain articles of Service clothing and, if necessary, to purchase a suit of battledress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th May, 1948; Vol. 450, c. 131.]
That refers to the details I have read out from the Army Council Instruction.
There the matter rested until it was felt necessary to defer demobilisation for National Service men and others for a period of three months. This, with the alteration in the period of National Service of from 12 to 18 months, meant that men would now be serving from a maximum period of two years three months, tapering down eventually to a period of 18 months.. On 15th December last, arising out of this position, I asked the Minister of Defence if he would agree that men
who, because of deferment serve for more than two years, will be entitled to an issue of clothing on demobilisation instead of clothing coupons.
The answer he gave me was a very uncompromising
No, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1211.]
The Minister based his reply, first, upon the fact that the decision to suspend this issue had been announced a considerable time ago. His second reason was that it would be impossible to accede to this request because of the expense it would entail. Third, that it would be impossible to set up again the proper organisation because it would be far too difficult to do so. Fourth, he said that this concession could not apply to men who had not served as long as other men had served during the war. Last of all, he said that the men would be able to purchase a battledress and would receive 60 coupons. I want to take these points in order and to show that they should not be regarded as major considerations at

this time, and that the arguments of the Minister of Defence to maintain his principle that this allowance should be discontinued can in no way hold good.
First, on the announcement that this decision was announced a long time ago and, therefore, cannot now be put right. Whilst this may be true, the decision is only just taking effect. Because of the additional three months' service the men who would have left the Services at the beginning of this year will start coming out of the Forces in March, April and onwards. These are the men who were called up in January, 1947, and, under the present scale, are due for release in April, 1949. When April arrives there will be very many men who are disappointed that they have not received civilian clothes; they will be bitterly disappointed at not receiving a grant to purchase them. They will find great difficulty, out of their meagre savings, in fitting themselves with a complete civilian outfit.
Neither does the objection on grounds of expense carry any weight. It is a very poor arrangement to insist that an expenditure of something like £1½ million is a great deterrent when it is realised that the total Budgetary Estimate in 1949 for the three fighting Services is in the nature of £750 million. I should have thought that, for the sake of elementary justice and the contentment of the men in the Forces, my right hon. Friend could have made out an overwhelming case to the Treasury to get this additional money. My rough calculations are that something like 150,000 to 175,000 men will be leaving the Forces this year, and something like 140,000 next year. Even with the increases in pay which were recently announced, and which we welcome, it is still impossible for the National Service man to equip himself with a full outfit of clothes at his own expense when he leaves the Forces. It is quite impossible for him to save from his weekly pay something like £20 to £25 to do so. Such a proposition is utterly ridiculous.
I am quite certain that when a man, at the end of his service of two years and three months, finds he leaves the Forces with 60 coupons—which, since the changes in clothes rationing have lost their value and are no longer necessary for the purchase of a suit of clothes; when he finds that all he receives is one day's pay and allowances for each month


of completed service, he will be very disillusioned and the morale of his unit will suffer as a result. If we rely upon these people to spread abroad to their fellow citizens and families after their release that the Forces have treated them fairly, and so encourage other people to enlist, recruitment is bound to suffer unless something more is done.
I have had a good many letters on this matter, all in the same strain. One of my constituents, who was discharged from the Forces as medically unfit, finds himself without civilian clothes, and with a balance of something like £4 and 60 coupons after his period of service. His father came to see me and protested vigorously against this treatment. His son is permanently unfit for further service. If only he could purchase a new suit of clothes the psychological benefit to him would be immense, but he cannot because he has not the money, neither has his parents. All he was offered was a suit of dyed battledress. This is not the right kind of treatment for someone who was called up for the Services. A good many hon. Members in all parts of the House have had considerable correspondence on this complaint. This correspondence will increase as the men go to the demobilisation centres.
At the moment it is only just beginning, but when April comes it will be more like an avalanche of protests against the non-provision of civilian clothing.
The next point is about the difficulty of the heavy administrative commitments which would arise if the machinery were again to be set up. If my right hon. Friend will accept the proposals we have to make, this need not arise. I do not propose and I do not suppose that my hon. Friends will propose, that the whole machinery of the demobilisation clothing centre in the Armed Forces should be set up again. We realise that that played an important part when people were coming out in large numbers, but today it is not necessary as there is more civilian clothing in the shops. We are not asking for that clothing organisation to be reestablished. I am pleading with my right hon. Friend to give a clothing allowance in cash to each person as he is released from the Forces. I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has now come into the House.
Something like 150,000 people will come out each year. If we give them what they really need to purchase clothing today, assuming that they come out with full entitlement to retained clothing from the Services, at today's prices it would cost something like £15 to £20 to fit them up. When we multiply that by the number coming out it makes a large sum, but, in a Defence budget of something like £750 million, £1,500,000 or even £2 million to satisfy this demand does not seem extravagant and certainly should not debar my right hon. Friend from a vigorous request to the Treasury for this money. I find that under the previous scheme a cash allowance in lieu of clothing to certain men discharged on medical grounds and invalided home was £12 10s. If my right hon. Friend could give the equivalent of that it would be at least something, but I am not pressing for a particular amount, as I have not the exact figures involved. If my right hon. Friend will agree in principle to some cash grant of some amount it would go a long way to satisfy me.
The other argument advanced was that the length of service now could not compare with that of men called up in wartime and that, therefore, it would not be fair to give this clothing allowance to National Service men now. Recently we undertook to increase the length of service by a period of three months and also decided to increase the period of service from 12 to 18 months. This year a large number of men will be released who have been away for something like two years and three months. Obviously, they have outgrown or outworn their previous civilian clothing.
The argument has been advanced that we ought not to provide this clothing because the clothes they had before they were called up will still fit them and in any case if they were not called up they would still have to buy a new suit of clothes after 18 months, or two years. That argument does not hold water, because we all know that people of 18 to 20 years of age are developing rapidly. The Secretary of State for War rightly took pride recently in announcing that after the first six weeks of service—which are the most strenuous—a National Service recruit puts on 4 lb. If he puts on 4 lb. in weight in the first six weeks of service, it stands to reason that in a more static formation he puts on more


weight. It is only reasonable to expect that, as he has obviously outgrown his civilian clothing during his service, he should have something at the end of that service, in order to replace his clothing.
The last ground on which it was said that the allowance could not be given is that the man is able to purchase a suit of battledress dyed blue. But that is only so in special cases in which a soldier is able to show that he is not in possession of civilian clothing and is without sufficient funds to provide it. That, to me, is a re-echo of a means test which should not be applied. In any case who wants to wear a suit of blue dyed battledress after going about in khaki battledress for two years or 18 months? But if some one should want to wear one for his normal occupation, who wants to pay 31s. 8d. for it? I hope that my right hon. Friend will confess that that solution is a complete failure and that it has not been used. I hope that he will put something better in its place.
To sum up, I wish, as moderately and as reasonably as I can, to make of the Service authorities the demand that they should act decently towards the National Service man, and at least return him to civil life in no worse a position than he was in when he entered the Services. In order to do that, I am convinced that these men must, for the many reasons I have stated, be provided with an adequate clothing allowance. I hope that if my right hon. Friend goes to the Treasury, he will put the strongest plea for these people so that we can act justly and honourably towards them.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I am glad that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has been fortunate in the ballot and so has been able to raise this important question. I believe that in doing so he has rendered a service not only to the men concerned but also to the nation as a whole. I say that because it is in the national interest that these men who are called up for service should leave the Services in the right frame of mind, and should feel that they have been well treated during their service and not just discarded when their period of service was over and left to fend for themselves. I do not believe that anyone can doubt that when a man comes out of one of the Services he needs

a new civilian outfit. It is to the credit of the treatment he has received during his service and the benefit of that Service that that is so.
Like the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees, I have had a number of letters giving details of cases. Parents have written saying that their sons have during their period of service of two years or thereabouts increased in weight by as much as two stones and that their height has increased by three or four inches, so that the civilian clothes which they had before their service are no longer suitable for them. The right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility to these men. He has taken them away from their ordinary vocations, and has, if one cares to put it that way, affected their careers by taking them away for service. They have gone willingly. Everyone must admire the spirit in which they have accepted their national obligations. But that also carries with it an obligation on the part of the Government to see that they receive an equally just deal in turn.
One of the things which these men learn as part of their military service is discipline, something which we hope will be of use to them not only in the Services but afterwards. The maintenance of discipline, however, largely depends upon the maintenance of self-respect. The clothes which a man wears also have an influence on his self-respect. To tell him that he can wear his civilian clothes which he had before his service, which he has outgrown, or that he can be content with a blue dyed battledress, is not the way to get the best results out of the training he has had in the Forces. I would appeal to the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to this plea.
The argument that the pay is such that the men are in a position to buy civilian clothes themselves may be correct in theory, but in practice it does not work out like that. Letters I have received tell me that there are men in the Services who are unable to save. Some of these are men who do not drink or smoke. To a certain extent their money goes on fares home. They go home once in six weeks and it is quite natural that they should. Their parents want them and they are at the age when they want to go home as often as possible. But the greatest amount goes in food. The Minister will say that the Services provide all the food the men require. That again is a theory.


We have heard a great deal in this House about the evening meal which Service men get. I am told that the provision of that evening meal is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If the soldier asks for it he gets it, but it is not automatically provided in a great many units. In any case, there are a great many men who do not complain about the adequacy of the food provided, but they find that it is very badly cooked. Therefore they find it necessary to spend a certain amount of money at the N.A.A.F.I. and other places. The result is that when they come out of the Services they have not been able to save anything.
I would remind the House that some of these men make allowances to their parents. Many of them are the sons of widows or people in humble circumstances, and it is to their credit that they do help their parents. But the net result is that a very large number of them come out of the Services needing civilian clothes and without having saved sufficient money to buy any. It is an obligation upon the Government to see that these men are given a grant, because I agree that is the simplest way of dealing with them. All that is necessary is to add the amount of the grant to what it costs to maintain a Service man for a period of 18 months or two years, or, as in the case of many of these men, two years and three months.
Reference has been made to the extra period of three months' service which these men are being called upon to accept. The fact of this additional three months increases the responsibility of the Government to see that when they come out they are provided with the means to fit themselves for civilian life. Therefore, the sum to be added to the maintenance of a man in the Services by giving him this grant is really insignificant compared with what is being spent over the period. There are also instances of men who, when they come out, will have served two years and three months, but their brothers who served during the time when clothing was provided served only 14 months and received civilian clothing. Therefore there is unfairness comparing one man with another.
The result of refusing to give them this grant is to send these men back to civilian life in a disgruntled mood, which I would submit is the very last kind of feeling we

wish them to have with regard to the Army. We expect and shall receive further service from these men, and we should see that they are in a position to enter civilian life properly equipped so far as clothing is concerned in order to make good the loss which they have suffered as a result of their military career; to maintain their self-respect and in every way to be a credit to the Service of which they have been members. That will only be so if my right hon. Friend will accept this request.
The alternative is to throw the burden upon the parents, and that is unreasonable. It is a burden which a great many parents will be unable to bear. If there is only a widow or someone who is comparatively poor, it is impossible for them to find the means to fit out these men with civilian clothing when they are released from the Services. This is the duty and the obligation of the State, and I hope that the Minister will recognise it. This duty was recognised during the war. For all practical purposes the conditions were the same. The reason given then was that we realised that the need for civilian clothes was there when the men were released. I hope that the Minister will not say tonight that the only time when this country is prepared to give a square deal to its fighting men is when we are at war. Cannot we show the same spirit or fair treatment when we make use of the services of these men in peace? They are serving the country to the best of their ability. I hope that my right hon. Friend will show his appreciation. He will get the best out of these men by seeing that civilian clothing is provided.

9.6 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I am very glad that I have this opportunity to express something of what has been communicated to me by many mothers all over Great Britain on this subject. The mothers feel very sore about this position. I have also had letters from those whom I know in the Services, and they are most bitter. As a matter of fact, the withdrawal of the concession of the free suit is rankling in the minds of our men to such an extent that they are calling themselves, "the forgotten men."

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Come, come!

Mrs. Mann: I am not surprised at that interjection from the Opposition benches,


considering that they have always been such enthusiasts for recruiting and that tonight they have a total of four Members present while we discuss this subject of suits for our National Service men.
One reason why they call themselves "the forgotten men" is that they feel that their case has not been brought to the Floor of the House of Commons. The men who went through the heat and burden of the day were constantly the subject of debate. Those who followed had their case debated in the House of Commons. It was discussed whether they should serve for 18 or 12 months, and then we went from 12 months back to 18. But the in-betweens think that they have aroused no interest whatever in this House. They did an extra three months' service. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) read from the Regulations that this provision applied to those called up for two years or less. What applied was that they would have a pair of boots, a shirt and tie. I do not understand the next provision that they will have the vests, drawers and socks that they are wearing at the time. Surely, no one is suggesting the alternative—that they shall be deprived of the vest, socks and drawers that they are wearing at the time? That seems to be the only alternative. Certainly, the period of two years or less does not apply to them, because they have had three months thrust on to the two years.
It would be a very nice gesture by my right hon. Friend if he would take action in this matter. I know that he has a very generous, fatherly heart towards all the men in the Services. I appeal to my right hon. Friend, who is second to none in his attitude towards these men, that this means much more than the amount of money that is involved. We talk a good deal about the morale of our Forces, and this is a direction in which we can stimulate the morale of the men in the Services.
I ask the Minister to remember that very many of these men have lost two years and three months of fairly high earnings. I certainly know that some of those in the commissioned ranks have lost very high salaries during this period, and even those in the non-commissioned ranks have made a sacrifice. Not only that, although this may bring nothing but scorn from hon. Members opposite, the earnings of these men meant a great deal to

the parents in their homes, who have been deprived of part of those earnings for two years and three months, though there have been no grumbles about it. When their sons come back, the parents are all very pleased that their boys are taller and healthier, and that they weigh very much more than when they left home, but what are they to receive? A mere 60 coupons, and that means nothing today. Anyone can buy a suit of clothes and an overcoat free of coupons, and that is another reason why my right hon. Friend should reconsider this matter.
I ask him to reconsider it chiefly from the point of view of the morale of our Forces, secondly, in regard to the burden placed on the fathers and mothers, who have made the sacrifice of two years and three months of their sons' earning capacity; thirdly, that the boy comes home a grown man, different in weight and in size; and, fourthly, that the price of a suit has been steadily increasing until they can no longer get one for £5 or £6. I hope my right hon. Friend will take all these factors into consideration, and, through his own big, generous nature, make a generous gesture to his fighting men.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. Walkden: I believe that this is one of the most important Adjournment Debates that has been initiated for many months, and I will tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) the reason why I think so. It is an extraordinary coincidence that the Minister of Defence, who is replying tonight, was head of the Admiralty in the days of the Coalition Government and resisted the idea of the scheme dealing with men being discharged from the Armed Forces, when the War Office had already given way. I am being perfectly frank about this, and the right hon. Gentleman himself well remembers it. His Department, the Admiralty, resisted to the utmost limit the whole idea of giving to the men of the Royal Navy what it had already been decided should be given to the men of the Army and the Air Force.
The right hon. Gentleman well remembers that, at that time, I attended at the Admiralty to meet some of his friends—I believe they are called the Board of Admiralty—and he was present when we discussed this matter. The right hon.


Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), now the Leader of the Opposition, had previously signed a contract with Montague Burton to supply the men of the Navy with suits, and this was later converted into a bigger scheme, which was resisted by the Admiralty, but which finally had to be accepted because the Army and Air Force had agreed to it, in spite of the stupidity of the Admiralty.
I can see that the Minister of Defence does not like what I am saying, but, whether he does or not, I must say this as a preliminary because I believe that the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees has raised a really important issue which we must all face. The fact is that when folks like myself came out of the Services after World War I, we were offered a suit of clothes or, I believe, £2 15s. Od. The suits offered were similar to those issued after the Boer War—the old Martin Henrys. I believe that the suit was worth about 30s. In most cases the men took one look at the suit and said they would rather take the money. As I said to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees earlier this evening, it was not until 1941 or 1942 that anybody, apart from one or two of my hon. Friends and myself, gave any thought to what the men coming out of the Armed Forces should be given by way of an outfit.
I remember the argument we had with the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air and also with the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Defence. We carried on that argument for month after month; in fact, I believe that I, personally, had 16 Questions down on the Order Paper on the subject. Eventually, however, the Government gave way and decided to give the men, instead of the old Martin Henry type, a suit of clothes which I think the majority of them could wear with pride. As has been mentioned, the man who was formerly discharged from the Army received his ordinary suit of clothes. If he wanted a collar and tie, he had to go to N.A.A.F.I. and pay ninepence for the collar and Is. 3d. for the tie. All the rest of his rig-out he had to buy for himself. To the credit of the Coalition Government, and mostly to the credit of the Labour Members of that Government—I am sorry I cannot congratulate the Tories on this

because they resisted it to the hilt—they supported the policy that every man should be entitled to receive a rig-out on his discharge in which he would feel dignified when applying for a job, returning to his home, or meeting his pals in the local. I believe that these rig-outs cost something like £17 18s. per man. If the Minister of Defence will look at the figures, I think he will find that my assessment is a fairly accurate one. It cost the country £42 million.
I charge the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends with making the biggest mistake of all at the end of 1946. We gave these suits to men whether they had been in the Army for two months, six months or 12 months, it made no difference; whether they had been in for four years or five years, it was all the same. Today when a man comes out of the Army he is given a packet of clothing coupons which have no real value whatever. I contend that whether it be the Regular soldier, the National Service man, whoever it may be, if he is away from home and serving in the Armed Forces—Army, Navy or Air Force—for a matter of 12 months, 18 months or two years and three months, it is the right, proper and decent thing to do to see that he has the same kind of treatment as was given to men after 1944. I believe we have no right to make a comparison with the Boer War and with what happened then or with what happened after the first world war. We should say that these chaps are entitled to their suits.
I have sent at least half-a-dozen letters to different Ministers in recent months on this very important issue, but they do not seem to understand it. I think it is a stupid mistake; it is a contradiction in policy, because most of the Ministers who are now in office in this Government were supporters of this scheme in the last Government. Why should there be such a change round as we see today? These fellows need a suit. At the most it might cost, at today's prices, about £15 to fit a man out. Why should we, for the sake of £15 per man, to save a possible £100,000 a year, deny them this suit? Why should we say that these fellows are not entitled to their suits? Why should we say that the women are not entitled to an allowance, because we also gave the women a clothing allowance, as the Secretary of State for Air will remember?
I beg the Government to recognise that this is a mistake. The mistake was first made in 1946. It can be rectified and it should be rectified right away. Just as they did a genuine job of work in supporting the policy during the war, which everybody admired, even though it cost the country £40 million, I believe they should say now, "We made a mistake in 1946 but we will put it right and we will see that we do the decent thing as we did it in 1944." I beg the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence and all Ministers who are concerned wih this business of discharging men from the Armed Forces to recognise the rights of the citizen, his right to a decent rig-out and the right to fair treatment for all discharged from the Armed Forces.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Hoy: The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) for raising this subject tonight. I feel that he and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) put a case which was unanswerable. I should like to add a word in support of the case which they made out. Despite the increases in pay, which we all welcome, I do not believe for one moment that soldiers are so well paid that they can save very much during the course of their service. There are two items which always stand out in a soldier's expenditure and I think I can say that from some experience. The first is that they want to smoke. When cigarettes cost 3s. 6d. for 20 smoking can make a fair-sized hole in the wage of the average soldier. Secondly, when a soldier goes out at night he does not want to be compelled to return to barracks to get the supper which is provided for him. He wants to go to the N.A.A.F.I. or to a restaurant.
Those two items use up a fair amount of the wages he is paid. I have never for one moment believed all these stories about soldiers purchasing with their savings and gratuities businesses, houses, and one thing and another. Their wages do not amount to so much that they can do those sorts of things—and their wages are all they get. Therefore, to ask these men to face an expenditure of this kind when they have completed their period of National Service is to ask too much of them.
The argument of the Minister of Defence is, of course, that this decision was made in 1947—as if we had made decisions in this House which we have never been able to change. The decision that the National Service man should serve for 12 months was changed, in a very short space of time to 18 months. And it was my right hon. Friend who came and asked the House to make that change. Tonight we ask him to make a change of a much simpler kind. We are not asking him to set up all the machinery established at the conclusion of the war in order to fit these men out. We are asking him to pay them a sum of money which will buy a civilian outfit at the completion of their service. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) that £15 would cover this. I should myself put it at not less than £20.

Mr. Walkden: I was thinking of the suit I am wearing at the moment, made by a particular firm—I am not saying which firm, but the right hon. Gentleman will be able to identify it—which cost £13 5s. I was assessing my figure on current prices; that is all.

Mr. Hoy: I do not want to debate this, except to point out that at the end of the war the outfit given to a soldier included, in addition to the suit, an overcoat, shoes, hat, shirt and collar, and so on, so I think that in asking for £20 I am asking for a fair and, I hope, not unreasonable sum.
The first of these men will be coming out in April of this year; very few men have been affected until now, and to make this payment retrospective would not be very difficult. I do not think it is very decent of the Services to offer a man a dyed battledress in lieu of a suit; that is cheap and shabby, and a relic of the old poor law system. After all, this Government has congratulated itself on abolishing the old poor law system, so there is no reason for my right hon. Friend bringing it into the Services at this time.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We are a very poor country, all the same.

Mr. Hoy: Yes, indeed we are. I am quite willing to admit that we have had to face up to great difficulties. But the nation has faced up to those difficulties


and made it possible for us to achieve things that we thought impossible only a year ago. When men are asked by the country to give up two years of their life to the Services, then it is not asking too much of the country in return to pay them this small amount for which we are asking in order that they may fit themselves out with clothing.
I do not want to prolong this Debate any longer than need be. I hope I have said sufficient in support of the case made by my hon. Friend to have impressed the Minister so that he will not give us a flat refusal tonight, but will at least promise to give the matter his consideration. I hope that he will decide to make a cash payment to each man as he completes his service with the Armed Forces.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I wish merely to underline the importance of the problem we are facing tonight. The noble Lord, in an interjection just now, said that ours was a poor country. Well, it may be a poor country, but we faced up to our obligations to men coming out of the Services before, and if there is anything we have a right to be proud of it is the treatment accorded to them compared with what was meted out to men after the 1914–18 war. But I am afraid that compared with the treatment so recently experienced, which achieved such popularity, what is happening to the men coming out in April is very shabby indeed.
I ask the Minister of Defence to consult with the Secretary of State for Air, who is now sitting beside him, about what the men in the Royal Air Force today say about this. This morning I had a letter from a parent in Kilmarnock whose son was home on leave last week. That man has gone back to his unit; he has another three months to do; but he, and everyone else in the same position, is going to spend that three months grumbling and grousing and affecting every newcomer to that unit. What applies to the Air Force applies also to the Army.
The morale of the Forces is being driven down by this unjustifiable decision. I say it is unjustifiable because of this. It is all very well to say that the decision was taken in 1947. A lot has happened since then. Decisions were

taken ánd have already been scrapped. The men have to serve an extra three months. People who are going in as National Service men will serve 18 months. I consider it absolute hypocrisy to talk about justice being done when we are ignoring the fact that men have already come out of the Army, Navy and Air Force, having served terms less than two years and three months, and have received all the benefits of the civilian clothing issue.
There is the question of expense. The hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) talked of the generosity of the Minister of Defence. What about the generosity of this House and of this country towards the Minister of Defence in giving him £750 million? I think he would find no complaints from the country or from this House if part of that bill included the giving of fair treatment in the matter of civilian rig-out to the men coming out. The organisation of the civilian issue seems to be put forward as one of the objections, but if we can organise to give a man a uniform when he goes in it is surely not beyond the wit of the administration to give him a civilian uniform when he comes out. I do not like the idea of a cash payment. I prefer to see a man properly rigged out. The argument about administrative difficulty is one which we have heard very often. It should be faced and recognised as part of the duty of the Ministries concerned to see that men go out properly equipped as civilians.
Those men have given up vital years of their lives when they would have been earning money and helping their families at home. It is from about 18 to 21 years of age that these chaps are actually helping their fathers and mothers. After that, they are thinking of getting married and they are starting to save up. Here they are, coming out of the Services at 21. Who is to bear the burden of the civilian clothing? As has already been pointed out, the men cannot save anything in the Army. I was a major and I could not save anything during the time I was there. It will be much worse for these men. The parents will have to bear this burden. This is a poor country and there are a lot of poor people in it. It is the very poor people who have to bear this unjust burden. I ask the Minister of State and the Minister of Defence to think along these lines.


These men need civilian clothing. The fact that we give them 60 coupons stresses our recognition of their need. We are shutting our eyes to the impossibility of the men providing the clothing themselves and to the injustice of making their parents provide the clothing. It is the duty and the obligation of the Ministry to provide this clothing. The way these people are being treated at present challenges our British sense of fair play.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I believe it is a custom when the overwhelming voice of the House is expressed in Debate for taking a particular line, for the Minister to yield to it. In this Debate every speaker has urged the Minister to reconsider his attitude. The noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) in an interjection, gave the clue to the opposition, that this is a very poor country. I do not know whether the noble Lord is proposing to elaborate that argument in support of the Minister of Defence, but I urge the Minister not to support that argument with figures or in any other way or to say that the Labour Government supports the reactionary opinion of a noble Lord who says that this is a very poor country which cannot afford to give decent clothing to the men it conscripts.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Gentleman is adding words to something I said.

Mr. Hughes: It is open to the noble Lord to elaborate his case—I will sit down with pleasure—but we understood him to say that this was a very poor country. Apparently the noble Lord does not wish to elaborate that, but the interjection was—it will be recorded in HANSARD, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) took it up—that this is a very poor country which presumably cannot afford to give a decent suit of clothes to a conscript.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) has put forward an unanswerable case in saying that it is our duty to act decently towards the ex-Service man and that the ex-Service man needs an adequate clothing allowance. Surely Ministers want something to say on their recruiting platforms? They know as well

as I do that their recruiting has been a flop and a failure. In addition to that, is it now going to be said that we cannot afford to give the conscripts a decent suit of clothes. The Minister of Defence should remember that the Secretary of State for War went to Aberystwyth last week on a great recruiting campaign as a result of which he got two recruits—A.T.S. If the Minister of Defence does not now say that he will grant this concession, what on earth is the good of his making great orations and appealing on the recruiting platform?

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Do I gather that if these concessions are granted, the hon. Member will come out on the recruiting. campaign?

Mr. Hughes: No, I seek more concessions. When the Minister of Defence proposes that recruits who join as a result of his campaign shall be given decent houses as well as decent suits of clothes it will be time for me, as representing a badly-housed, slum-ridden constituency, to consider his point of view. However. that is not the point.
Let us look at the cost of this. This year 17,000 recruits are being called up from Scotland. The estimate of the cost of this is between £170,000 and £200,000. The estimates given for the whole country are that 150,000 Service men will have to be catered for. That comes out to £900,000 a year. At the very maximum estimate the total cost to the Exchequer would be £1 million a year. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has said, the House will be asked in a few days time for £720 million, and yet right hon. Gentlemen say that we cannot afford one-720th of that to clothe the conscript. The Minister for Air is coming to this House in a week's time for £203 million. I hope he will tell the Minister of Defence that he is prepared to recommend the concession as far as the Air Force is concerned.
I suggest that when the Government need all the appeals they can get to bring people into the Army, the Minister of Defence, the Secretary of State for Air and the Secretary of State for War would be well advised to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, If we do not give this concession of £1 million at the present time, we shall make ourselves


more ridiculous in the eyes of the Service men and in the eyes of the country than we are now." I am quite sure the Chancellor would say, "This is quite a reasonable case. If you cannot give it, cut down the £720 million to £719 million and the problem will be solved."

9.42 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has taken on himself the task of prejudging the view of the Opposition on this issue. He has taken up a remark made by my noble Friend indicating that we would not be sympathetic to the view put forward tonight. That would be a most improper conclusion to draw, because the adequate and pleasing provisions made for ex-Service men after the last war were made by a Government dominated by those who belong to my party.

Mr. Walkden: But the hon. Gentleman's party opposed the scheme.

Mr. Shepherd: I agree that there is a different atmosphere, and that to some extent the problem is different when one comes to deal with conscripts who have served a relatively short time. However, we ought to bear in mind that these men who serve even a couple of years have immense disadvantages in so serving. They are taken away from their employment at a time which is critical to their earning capacity, and they may well come from homes where the withdrawal of that wage-earner makes a material difference to the family budget. Therefore, if it is at all possible, we should do something for these men. I do not favour the granting of a cash payment, because one could provide an outfit on the basis of mass production and buying at a low price, and I should be anxious, if anything were done, that it should be done on the basis of the Government providing the actual garment.
We on this side of the House are obviously as keen as anybody in the country to encourage as many men as possible to join the Services. In the existing state of affairs, where clothes and other things cost so much money, the Government ought to try to provide something for these men who are making some sort of sacrifice. I know that the Minister of Defence has many problems—most of

them are behind him—but I hope he will do all he can to find some means whereby the difficulties which face these men who leave the Forces, and who in the main will have outgrown the clothes in which they went into the Forces, can be resolved. That would certainly be the wish of those who sit on these benches.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate clearly that he is amenable to reason and to a sense of justice; that it will not take him long to reply, and that his reply will be easy, simple and pleasant to listen to, namely, that he concedes the justice of the case which has been made out and that he will report to the Cabinet accordingly.
I think there is no doubt in the minds of hon. Members—and, certainly, in the minds of Members of the Government—that if circumstances so warranted, the length of the period of compulsory service would be increased by three, six, nine or even 12 months if, in the opinion of those responsible, such an increased period was absolutely necessary for national safety. Therefore, in facing a problem of this kind, the financial cost would assume a very minor place in the consideration of the requirements of the country. In other words, if it was a question of maintaining or increasing the total establishment strength of the Armed Forces, the number of millions of pounds involved would be a secondary consideration.
I put this point and I hope it will have the desired effect. So far as cost is concerned, assuming that the period of service is increased by national necessity for a further three months, and that the average income or payment to these men so retained for further service in the Forces is 35s. a week, I estimate that the extra weekly cost would be roughly £150,000. Over a period of ten weeks it would amount to £1,500,000. Assuming that the total cost to be allowed for the suits of clothing which 150,000 men would require on discharge is £20, I estimate that the total cost over a period of three months' service—costing, as I have said, 35s. per head per week—would be about £3 million. This is only a rough estimate but I hope it is correct.
If the Minister is going to hedge on an amount of £3 million to meet this quite


modest request I suggest he should take his courage in both hands and give this boon to all the men coming out of the Services. That would have the effect of advertising the sense of justice held by the Government towards these men and would be the greatest medium of advertisement for the Services which these men could take back to civilian life. I am sure the Government desire to have a contented force of men and a contented body of people not only in the Services, but also in industry. If we are to have a disgruntled element of 150,000 men coming back into industry feeling that they have had a raw deal in the clothing line, that will be a great disservice to the nation as a whole and will have repercussions on the number of men entering the Services as volunteers.
I plead with all other hon. Members who have spoken tonight. I urge the Minister to note the significant point that not one hon. Member has opposed this idea of a clothing allowance. If that is any indication of the feeling of the House, the only fair deduction which can be drawn is that the overwhelming sense of opinion in this Chamber and, I think, in the whole country, is that these men should have a fairer deal in regard to the clothing allowance, either by the issue of clothing coupons or an adequate money amount to give them a decent suit for civilian life, which they can display as a further indication of the sense of justice and fair play of this Government.

9.52 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) for the way in which he has raised this matter. A number of Questions have been put in the House and my right hon. Friends the Service Ministers and myself have had a number of letters from hon. Members and some from people outside, although I cannot say that the number of communications I have received on the matter has been very large.
It is good that, when a matter of this kind is raised, it should be debated to try to get to the real essence of the position. First I would emphasise the difference between the two classes of men with whom we have been dealing: the pre-1947 men

and those who enlisted as National Service men after 1st January, 1947. Those up to 1st January, 1947 have been covered by the general scheme referred to by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden)—the scheme formulated during the war, devised to deal with those men in the Services who had been either volunteers or had been called to the Colours under National Service for an unlimited period and the greater part of them undertaking very grave risks in the course of their duty.
These men were to be treated in regard to demobilisation after the war under the age and service release groups. In order that they might get what was reckoned to be justice in that situation, the special scheme was brought in on top of the very generous demobilisation allowances at the end of the war—two months leave and gratuities—to give them an opportunity, after the great stress through which they have passed, to have time to look around, and sometimes to get a rest and to be able to go back to civilian life without any great handicaps. The other class of men with whom we are dealing are those who were called to the Colours for National Service in peace time after 1st January, 1947.
I suggest that those who took the decision to bring that other scheme to an end as from 1st January, 1947, had a good many facts before them which seemed to justify the decision then taken by the Government. The men were no longer called upon for an unlimited period of service but for one which was strictly limited, they were called upon for duty in peace time, and the great majority of them would be confined to Service peace duties. Perhaps the whole debatable point is that, if there is such a difference between the two cases as to justify the great provision made in respect of those called up between 1938–39 and 1945–46 as compared with those called up from 1947 onwards, therefore the decision which was announced to the House in January, 1947, can be justified in principle.
I would also say, with regard to the actual scheme for civilian clothing for the men who were coming out of the Services after the war, namely, all those who were enlisted before the end of 1946, there was another factor in the mind of the Government. That was that at that time supplies of civilian clothing were


exceedingly scarce. Most of the men would have had great difficulty in getting a suit, at least without waiting for a considerable time for it. With the large number who had to be demobilised, and the urgent need for getting them back into civilian occupations as soon as possible it was a sound plan to see that an actual provision in kind was arranged for them.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Doncaster did not seem to think that I had nice recollections of the Admiralty position in regard to that scheme because although the Admiralty disagreed for a time with the general proposal to set up depots and with the direct ordering by the man over the counter of what he wanted from the service stores, I never heard any objection from any of the officers at the Admiralty at the time to those men who had been called for war purposes and had served during the war having the benefit of clothing or clothing grants. In fact, the main difference between the hon. Member for Doncaster and the Admiralty was what was best for the men and what would be the most economical scheme in the interests of the State as well of the men, having regard to the volume of turnover which would have to be provided for in the demobilisation of such large forces. I was able, no doubt with the help and stimulation of the hon. Member for Doncaster, to persuade them, and I do not think that there is any need for us to be in any sense at cross purposes about this matter tonight.

Mr. Walkden: And I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it.

Mr. Alexander: The Minister of Labour and National Service made that announcement to the House about 15th or 16th January at the very time when the first batch of men was being called up for service under the new arrangements. There was therefore adequate warning to those being called up as to what the situation would be in 1948–49, when they came to the end of their service. I do not think it has been suggested by any of my hon. Friends tonight, and there could be no question of saying, that there has been any breach of faith. It was actually announced and, this is extraordinary, at that time I heard scarcely a voice of protest.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will my right hon. Friend admit that he has been consistently questioned over almost the past two years, and that now that these men are beginning to realise they are coming out of the Services is when the trouble will begin? When they are going in they are far too concerned with the new life awaiting them to think about the matter. It is now when they are approaching demobilisation that the trouble will begin.

Mr. Alexander: I am perfectly well aware of the case. I only wish to establish in the minds of my hon. Friends that there was adequate notice to the men—

It being Ten o'Clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

Mr. Alexander: —of the decision then taken. One reason why the notice was given was, that there was then and is now a severe demand upon us to use all the economy we possibly can. While there may be from the point of view of my hon. Friends a good case for this clothing to be provided, in the present division of places from which men come and the rate at which they are demobilised, it could not justify that huge amount of overheads and the kind of establishment for the provision of clothing made between 1944 and 1948. I could not be a party to restoring that kind of provision at the present time and in the present circumstances.
One of my hon. Friends stated his opinion quite fairly, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He was very much against the principle of a cash grant. He said, "Never mind about the system and the cost; it is very much better to carry out our obligations to the full extent in making the necessary provision in kind." I wish to make it clear to my hon. Friend that in the present circumstances that certainly would not be possible.

Mr. Ross: Surely it is unfair to compare the overheads to deal with 150,000 men, with the demobilisation after the end of the war?

Mr. Alexander: The general provision of overheads becomes a much higher percentage with a lower number than with a larger volume.

Mr. Walkden: The right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly fair and I congratulate him. He has not recalled when our conversation took place with the Admiralty that his Department were at that time issuing chits, or vouchers, or documents which had a value negotiable at any tailor's or outfitter's shop in the country giving the same rigout. The War Office was giving the A.T.S. £12 10s. in lieu of any outfit at all.

Mr. Alexander: I am coming to that in due course. I am glad the hon. Member has supported what I have said about the Admiralty who at that time were putting up their case against the establishment of clothing stores, because a great many men in the Navy were asking for what they called the freedom of choice of their own tailors. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann)—my lady friend from Glasgow—[Laughter]—obviously she thinks I am very generous—raised the question of coupons. Until recently we got away with a good deal of this criticism, because we said that we had given 60 coupons. I am not sure what happens to the coupons, or whether the men used them all for themselves. If they have friends of the other sex near home, well, I know what happens to my coupons. I never see them. Now and again they are doled out to me a few at a time to meet any
of my requirements. Certainly they were highly valued by the men and I am sure that they will be glad to have coupons issued to them for those things which have not been taken off the ration.
Let us deal with the question of merits. We decided that, because of the changed circumstances, we should have to break away from the old practice. That does not mean that National Service men are bereft of any help whatever when they leave the Services. There are two points to be remembered. First, a National Service man on leaving the Service is now given one day's leave with pay for every month he has served. The second point is that, as against the position when we first made the clothing scheme available, there have been two advances in pay. There was the new pay code of December, 1945. In the case of the

upward adjustments made last November, while a National Service man will not at first qualify for the increases, every National Service man who has served for more than 12 months will qualify. We calculate that any Service man upon discharge will receive a sum of about £10. With his allowances he will receive about that amount. Those who have received promotion to N.C.O. rank will receive higher sums.
I will not argue about the details of the clothing he is allowed to retain, or cross swords with hon. Members about the value or lack of value of the dyed battle-dress. A good many men are glad to have it, especially those who have to go to some of the rougher classes of civilian work. It would be wrong to say that, if we are to do anything else for the men, we should cancel the choice they have at present of being able to retain these articles. I do not think that it has been suggested that the privilege should be withdrawn. On the question of cost, it is interesting to find that, whenever I come to deal with the Service position, there is never any lack of bidding up from all parts of the House. Whilst I heard hon. Members have a crack or two at the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), I must say that the bidding up on this sort of thing comes from all parts of the House. When we present a global estimate, hon. Members like the hon. Member for South Ayrshire are loud in their protests at this "huge expenditure from the national Budget and the tremendous waste of all this military business." The hon. Member for South Ayrshire did not give me a straight answer to my question—

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I was asked whether I would go on a recruiting campaign. May I say to the Minister of Defence that I have already agreed to go on a recruiting campaign on condition that I go into the Army and recruit the people out rather than recruit the people in. I will get more recruits in a month than the right hon. Gentleman will get in a year.

Mr. Alexander: It is much more easy at times to disintegrate things than to integrate them for the public good. If the real purpose of the hon. Member is to disintegrate the Defence Forces of the country, I can well understand him. It


does not lie with him, surely, to come along with the kind of plea made tonight. Not at all, and when he talks about housing provision for the troops, he should remember the position we are in by reason of the failure of Governments for decades past in regard to both barracks and married quarters accommodation. We have a long way to go before we can offer full amenities, but, if I recollect aright, it was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire who protested in this House against unauthorised persons being turned out of army accommodation in order to provide married quarters for soldiers. It is a curious turning about from one position to another that we seem to get nowadays from the hon. Member, who is trying sincerely to stick to the true line of action, though he is not quite on the true line on this occasion.
I have tried to put the general position as the Government see it before the House. I recognise that there is complete unanimity on the part of all hon. Members who have spoken, almost with one voice, on this matter, indicating that a good deal of importance is attached to it. I recognise that, but I would be quite wrong if I said to the House tonight that, because of the representations that have been made, we are going to change the policy. It would be quite wrong, because I have no authority for saying anything of the kind. What I can say is that we

will have the Debate most carefully examined and the various points gone into, though I hope that hon. Members will also keep in mind some of the difficulties which the Minister of Defence has to face in the present economic circumstances. If they do that and will remember that I make no promise, I will undertake to see that the matter is considered.

Mr. Chetwynd: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he try to see if a decision can be arrived at before the bulk of the men are coming out?

Mr. Alexander: I do not think that my hon. Friend had better ask me to enter into a pledge on this Debate.

Mr. Lipson: Would my right hon. Friend say whether his final remarks mean that he will make another statement to the House on the Government's policy in regard to this matter, indicating whether it will be changed or remain the Same?

Mr. Alexander: I will only say that I promised that the matter shall be examined, and that it is up to any hon. Member at any time to put down a Question to inquire what the result has been.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes past Ten o'clock.